Baroness Stern: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for the development of the Youth Justice Board in light of the transferof responsibility for the board to the Ministry of Justice.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, absolutely not. Noble Lords behind me wholeheartedly agree. The noble Lord will know that this system must be rolled out appropriately and in a measured way. We must secure the correct addresses. We have doneall that. I assure the noble Lord that very soon wewill have a further roll-out, which should satisfy everyone—even, I hope, the noble Lord.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I salute the noble Lord's work on rainforests throughout the world. We do indeed take heed of the advice fromSir Nicholas Stern that policies on limiting deforestation should be shaped and led by the nations where those forests stand. For that reason, we have given £50 million to the Congo basin. The whole project is managed by Professor Wangari Maathai, who I am sure all noble Lords would agree is the person best placed and with the most appropriate knowledge to manage that money on behalf of the Congo basin.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is no evidence of that. Japan is the only trading nation—there is an application from China, but it has not been looked at yet because the country applied too late—and it has met all the requirements placed on it when it bought the second block of ivory, consisting of 60 tonnes in three tranches, which I understand was agreed in 2002. There is an agreement not to re-export. Japan has compulsory trade controls over the raw ivory, a comprehensive and demonstrably effective reporting and enforcement system for the worked ivory—thatis, the products it makes—and the registering and licensing of all imports. Those who have looked at the monitoring of the situation have been satisfied that Japan has kept strictly to those requirements, hence the fact that the blocks of ivory have been allowed to be sold to them. We are satisfied with the monitoring that has occurred.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not quite sure howto answer that. I was talking to Defra officials in Brussels less than an hour ago about the current position. The committee was then meeting. We are desperate to ensure that there is an African solution to this problem—not an NGO solution, but an African one that they are satisfied with. There are grounds for a compromise between those who want a complete long-term ban and those who want trade that would both protect the African elephant and maintain the trade for those who want it. However, it is up to the African nations themselves to reach that compromise: we do not want the ex-colonial powers being seen to force it on them.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: This amendment is tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It echoes the previous amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and refers to the clear requirements for the appropriate training of all staff in contracted-out prisons who work with children and young people to include explicit child safety, protection and welfare provisions. These requirements really must be in the Bill. Our amendment has been informed by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, to which I am grateful.
	I return to the issue of the essential role of training for all those working in the criminal justice system. I would like to clarify for the record and for the Minister that, on our last day in Committee, far from suggesting that I thought that the Government took qualifications and training lightly or that anyone could do the job, I meant quite the reverse. I wanted to draw their attention to the perception—subjective but real none the less—in the Probation Servicethat in the Home Office qualifications are not viewed with great importance. It is important that the Government are aware of this and take it into account in their dealings with the service.
	I also return unashamedly, despite the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, on the previous day in Committee, to our discussion on the training of the provider of probation services. Today we are looking at the even more sensitive issue of the training of those who deal directly with children and young people. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has already raised the question of the management of visitors, who may be children, by staff in private prisons, including searching them and letting them in and out. I do not know whether many Members of the Committee have witnessed the searching process of visitors to prisons, but it is certainly more rigorous than many may realise. It includes looking into people's mouths, for example. This comes as quite a shock when you are not expecting it. In addition, personal searches can include the removal of more than just an outer coat or jacket, or gloves. Indeed, on more than one occasion I have been thoroughly searched and frisked in a cubicle, by an officer, in an STC, of all places, where I was an expected visitor. Actually, I was searched more thoroughly there than I ever was on going into the Maze prison.
	When searching of any kind is extended to children, we believe that it is essential that there are explicit child safety protection and welfare safeguards in place, which is not the case at the moment. The Explanatory Notes state that these powers will be exercised in line with prison and YOI rules, but no more than that. I believe that that is not enough.
	It is fair to assume that many children coming to make these visits are, by definition, more vulnerable than most. The often stressful nature of a prison visit, which anyone who has undertaken one will know, must not be compounded by inexpert searching. Furthermore, it is essential that those working in private prisons and STCs are able to exercise their powers to search and detain only within a clear framework of accountability, as exists in the statutory sector. There is, as always, a balance to be struck between necessary precautions and unwarranted invasion of privacy with adults, but in dealing with children, searching must be handled with extreme care and sensitivity at all times.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its letter of 19 December to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, raises a number of human rights compatibility issues in relation to the Bill. It says:
	"The committee is considering whether the removal of the restriction on the power of prison custody officers at contracted out prisons and secure training centres to search prisoners, so as to enable them to require visitors to remove items of clothing which are not merely an outer coat, jacket or gloves, is accompanied by sufficient safeguards to be compatible with the right to respect for private life in Article 8 ECHR.
	The European Court of Human Rights in Wainwright v UK has very recently reiterated the importance of stringent procedural safeguards accompanying any such power to search visitors to prison. ... The Committee is considering whether the new power to detain for up to two hours in a contracted out prisons and secure training centres whilst waiting for the arrival of a constable is compatible with the right to liberty in Article 5 ECHR".
	At present, the qualifications specified by regulations should include a requirement to undertake training in the Common Core of Skills and Knowledge for the Children's Workforce, developed by the DfES. It is meant to be a tool to enable anyone who works with children and young people to develop a common understanding in six basic areas: effective communication and engagement with children, young people and families; child and young person development; safeguarding and promoting the welfare of the child; supporting transitions; multi-agency working; and information sharing.
	I am sure that Members of the Committee will find that that list consists of nothing less than what is basic to all those practitioners we are discussing. But this common core is not mandatory for any practitioner working with children, although it expects a basic level of competence to be demonstrated "over time". Our view is that in this field it should be a prerequisite. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 107:
	After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
	"Establishments
	(1) Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable GroupsAct 2006 (c. 47) (regulated activity: general) is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph 3(1)(g) there is inserted—
	"(h) contracted-out prisons"."

Lord Dholakia: The amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Linklater and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. We discussed the power of search under Clauses 13, 14 and 15. Amendment No. 107 would add further safeguards in relation to search.
	I assure the Minister that this is a probing amendment. We were assisted in its drafting by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. We are concerned that a gap remains in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 in relation to adult prisons that children may enter as visitors. As the Minister in the other place highlighted, the Act already applies to those working in institutions which detain children. He said:
	"I hope that the Committee will be reassured byparagraph (3)(1) to schedule 4 of the 2006 Act, which lists the types of establishments to which the Act's safeguards apply. Included on the list in sub-paragraph (d) is
	'an institution which is exclusively or mainly for the detention of children'.
	That will mean that employees of all prisons, young offenders institutions and secure training centres, whether publicly or privately run, will be covered. I hope that the Committeefinds that clarification helpful, particularly given the scope of clauses 11 to 15, all of which can at least in theory apply to institutions in which children are held".—[Official Report, Commons Offender Management Bill Public Bill Committee, 23/1/07; col. 187.]
	We would like an assurance from the Government that those carrying out personal searches of child visitors to adult prisons are appropriately vetted. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sure it will come as no surprise when I give the assurance that there is little between us in terms of wishing to ensure that there is proper treatment of young people and vulnerable adults. I know that there is much support in the Committee for that view. The debates last year partly stimulated by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, were valuable. We are not seeking to do anything in this clause that would be allowed to undermine such outcomes. I want to make it clear that we have already put in place significant safeguards both in this Bill and in existing legislation. Notwithstanding the safeguards that we already provide within the clause, this probing amendment is unwarranted for a number of reasons, which I will seek to set out.
	The clause's purpose is to deal with issues related to the activities of non-certificated operational staff in private prisons. The amendment, however, seeksto apply the regulatory framework established bythe Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to everyone who works in a private prison, including those such as administrative staff who do not have any contact with prisoners, including those in adult prisons. Schedule 4 to the 2006 Act deals specifically with the regulation of children's establishments. That schedule was debated only last year. Consequently all issues related to the safeguarding of vulnerable groups were fully considered recently and it was not felt necessary to include all private prisons including adult prisons in this manner in that legislation then. Crucially, the importance of providing protectionfor children detained in custody was not overlooked in the 2006 Act in the way that the amendment inadvertently suggests. The regulatory regime relating to children under the Act applies to those private prisons primarily concerned with the detention of children—that is, YOIs and STCs—and they are covered by paragraph 3(1)(d) of Schedule 4 as being institutions that are exclusively or mainly for the detention of children.
	That wording reflects a clear decision not to apply the Act's requirements to institutions that do not deal mainly or habitually with the detention of children. The decision provides a sensible balance between the desire to ensure child safety and the need not to hamper the effective operation of prisons by imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens. In our view that was the right approach when the 2006 Act was passed and we do not think that anything that has happened since would warrant extending the reach of Schedule 4 so that it includes adult prisons now. Even if the 2006 Act did not already achieve what we believe the amendment's purpose to be, we consider that the amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful for other reasons. First, the amendment extends significantly beyond the scope of the clause as it stands. It would cover all staff at all grades in private prisons, whereas the clause deals only with the roles and responsibilities of non-PCO grades. The amendment is therefore inconsistent with the clause's purpose.
	Secondly, the existing safeguards that apply in privately-run prisons are sufficient to ensure the level of protection required in those exceptionally rare cases—if there are any—in which children may be detained in an adult prison. PCOs are those officers who have direct day-to-day contact with prisoners. PCO grades must, under Section 85 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, be authorised to perform their duties by the PCO certification unit. As part of this process PCO staff are already subject to rigorous pre-employment checks that include a requirement to disclose all previous convictions. Although non-PCO staff who do not have the same level of contact with prisoners as PCOs are not subject to the same certification requirements as PCOs, they are still cleared through the same unit as part of their pre-employment check. Any person seeking to work at a private prison receives a basic enhanced police check. In addition, any person who will be working in a juvenile prison, or who will come into contact with children or vulnerable adults, also undergoes a CRB check. Such pre-employment checks are consistent with those done on equivalent grades in the public sector, to which the amendment would not apply. We therefore contend that this additional bureaucratic check is not necessary or justified, as existing safeguards on staff suitability are adequate.
	In addition, the clause already limits the range of custodial duties that a non-PCO grade will be able to perform, and submits those tasks to parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will have to specify in an order subject to the negative procedure the activities that a worker may be authorised to carry out. We have also explicitly excluded from the Bill the use of force from this list. A non-PCO must be separately authorised at establishment level to carry out any task that is listed in such an order. Only a director can give such an authorisation, where appropriate, which can be subject to limitations or conditions. In determining whether an individual should be authorised or an authorisation limited or made subject to conditions, a director will need to satisfy himself or herself that an individual has an appropriate level of experience and expertise to be able to carry out the listed tasks in question. That is an inherent requirement of any power such as this. When a director decides on the appropriateness of an individual for a particular task, he or she will have in mind the contractual penalties—including financial penalties, as has been said several times from the Dispatch Box—and any damage to reputation incurred by operational failures in private prisons.
	In summary, the protection provided by Schedule 4 to the 2006 Act applies to young offender institutions and STCs. In the rare cases in which children are held in adult prisons, extensive alternative safeguards will apply. We firmly believe that this will be sufficient to ensure the safety of children in detention—a matter that I am sure all noble Lords consider to be of the utmost importance. I think that I have answered all the points that were made in the debate. We hope that the probing nature of the amendment means that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved AmendmentNo. 108:
	Clause 19, page 12, line 25, at end insert—
	"(4A) The reference in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of list B to a device of any description includes a reference to—
	(a) a component part of a device of that description; or (b) an article designed or adapted for use with a device of that description (including any disk, film or other separate article on which images, sounds or information may be recorded)."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clause 19 updates and clarifies existing legislation on the smuggling of illicit items into or out of prison. One of the ways in which we hope to do this is by breaking down the list of prohibited items into three clear bands, each grouped according to seriousness. The amendment concerns list B items: alcohol, mobile phones, cameras and sound-recording devices. The legislation refers to "any article or substance" in the list. Having thought carefully about the wording, we are concerned that it does not explicitly cover parts of these items,or articles designed or adapted for use with them. Sadly, individuals often smuggle illicit articles into and out of prisons in component parts, as this makes them easier to conceal. An obvious example is a SIM card.
	The amendment is also intended to cover separate or detachable items that can be used in conjunction with prohibited items but that could be smuggled in separately. Examples could include memory cards for digital cameras, batteries, film or tapes. I hope that the Committee will agree that this amendment is essential to make it explicit in the Bill, so that there is no room for doubt, that component parts of list B articles are covered by the offences in this clause. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 110 and 111. Clause 19 replaces Section 40 of the Prison Act 1952 with new Sections 40A, 40B and 40C. The new sections clarify the existing law, make changes to the penalties and mode of trial for certain offences and create the new offences of taking mobile phones, sound recording devices and cameras into a prison. We support the government amendment that has just been moved for that very reason: it clarifies and tightens up what could have been a loophole.
	We have tabled these amendments to ask the Minister to clarify matters regarding the actual process of authorisation that has been identifiedby the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in paragraphs 30 to 33 of its seventh report. Under Section 40E(1) and (2), as inserted by Clause 20—including as applied by Section 40C(7)—the Secretary of State may give an authorisation relating to the list B or list C articles.
	These authorisations need not be given only to individuals: they may be given to persons generally or to descriptions of persons, and for all prisons or for descriptions of prisons. So, authorisations by the Secretary of State which relate to all prisons or to descriptions of prison may be given either in prison rules, subject of course to the negative procedure, or by the Secretary of State administratively. In other words, the Secretary of State has a choice.
	The option of granting an authorisation by prison rules may recognise the fact that broad authorisations have, in effect, the legislative character of a general exemption. But the Bill does not require general authorisations to be given by rules, nor does the Home Office memorandum explain in what circumstances each different method will be used. The Delegated Powers Committee drew this position to the attention of the House so that we might ask the Minister to explain and justify in what circumstances the Government would propose to grant authorisations administratively and when they would choose to do it by prison rules.
	Furthermore, that committee pointed out that under Section 40B(2)(a), and Section 40(3)(a) and (b), the Secretary of State may give an authorisation relating to list A articles. While an authorisation cannot cover persons generally, it can cover descriptions of person—not just individuals—and all prisons or descriptions of both prison and acts, not just a particular deed. The only formality required for even a wide authorisation, which could border on the legislative, is that the authorisation be in writing or recorded in writing. What seems strange is that the option of prison rules seems not to be available at all. The Delegated Powers Committee similarly drew this matter to the attention of the House, so that your Lordships might ask the Minister to justify that position. We therefore tabled these amendments to enable the Government to do so, which I hope is to the satisfaction of the Committee today. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I appreciate that the Minister has to read into the record why the Government think Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 would be unhelpful—inappropriate, as he put it—and unnecessary if applied within the Bill. I made it clear that they were probing, merely to get the Government to put on record their justification for the action that they have taken. I made it clear that I did not intend to see those amendments in the Bill. As the Minister said, they would create unnecessary delay. He knows that I am usually very hot on saying that there are appropriate times when delay is right. This is one occasion when delay would be wrong. However, we have brought forward a helpful reflection by the Government with regard to Amendment No. 109. I look forward to seeing the results of the Government's reflections. I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised that I might retable the amendment at the last minute if an amendment does not appear from the Government.

Viscount Bridgeman: I, too, was disappointed to see this provision in the Bill, which seems like another ingredient in the Government's recipe for downgrading their responsibilities for the prison system.
	Healthcare in prison is vital for the effective rehabilitation of offenders and the effective management of offenders. My honourable friend Edward Garnier raised the issue in another place. He pointed out, rightly, that while healthcare services within prison are now provided through the local primary care trust—as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has reminded us—there is no guarantee that adequate provision will be made for the mentally ill.
	The Minister in another place recognised the need for more appropriate and accurately targeted provision of rehabilitation for the mentally ill. I await the Minister's response with the hope that she can expand further on this.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: I support the amendment. I listened to my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham from the Bar. Yesterday, I had an email from the BMA, which is very concerned about overcrowding in prisons. There should be a manager because when people have a sudden illness and have to be transferred out to a general hospital, they need to be escorted. Often prison staff are not on hand to do the escorting. That is a worry.
	I was at a conference last week on prison health and dual diagnosis. There was great concern from all sorts of people about those with dual diagnosis: prisoners or patients, whatever you call them, with mental health problems and drug and alcohol problems. Sometimes they fall through the net of treatment because one department says that it belongs to the other.
	I also spoke with several black people who were very concerned that not only dual diagnosis, but diagnoses of hidden things like sickle cell disease were often missed, which causes many black people considerable trouble. Therefore, more finance is needed for health in prisons, more people with expertise on these matters are needed and there is a need for more management when prisoners go out into the community, which is where great problems sometimes happen.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for tabling the amendment. Although it has been only a short discussion, there has been a lot of support for his concern. I well understand that concern. I must confess that when I started undertaking prison visits about 20 or 30 years ago—in a completely different capacity from when I became a Minister at the end of the 1990s—I was not greatly enamoured by what I saw. Although things had improved by the time that I became a Minister in the Home Office, I still thought that there was considerable room for improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has played an important role historically in helping the service to think more imaginatively about how services can be provided. He referred to his report back in 1996, which formed part of that discussion and debate.
	There is a degree of misunderstanding about why Clause 22 is there. Yes, Clause 22 removes the requirement for prisons to appoint a medical officer, but it does so for a sensible reason. The National Health Service, through PCTs, now has responsibility for health services in prisons. That move was widely welcomed; it was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham; and a very important move it was. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the issue, because that enables us to think more about what needs to be done to improve those services. I understand where he is coming from in wanting to see some functional responsibility, but the progress that is being made is being made for a reason. Perhaps as I go through the issues that have been raised, that will become clear.
	Given what I have said, we do not think that it would be appropriate for prisons to appoint a manager for services over which they have no authority, nor to dictate to the National Health Service the appropriate structure under which those services should be provided. The original intention of requiring the appointment of a medical officer in legislation was to represent a specific role that had specific health-related responsibilities in a prison. Now that health services in prisons have been modernised, those responsibilities are no longer automatically the responsibility of one individual. Today, prison health services are provided by a multi-disciplinary team, so that the different medical needs and issues that have been referred to in this debate—whether relating to drugs, sickle cell or other such matters—can be picked up. Individual responsibilities belong to team members as appropriate.
	If the intention behind the amendment is to ensure the continued engagement of the governing governor and the rest of the prison in health matters, our argument is simply that that does not necessitate legislation. Governing governors are shortly to be issued with a new Prison Service performance standard against which they will be audited and which is intended to ensure that they support the delivery of health services in the prison and recognise their continuing responsibility to contribute to improving the health of that prison population. That standard will include a requirement for a member of the prison board to be allocated responsibility for health issues and will contribute to ensuring that health issues remain high on the agenda of governing governors and their prisons. Having heard the debate, I should have thought that that move would have been widely welcomed in the House.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will agree that decisions on how healthcare is provided in the Prison Service are best handled by the National Health Service. After all, the noble Lord was one of those who put us in that general policy direction. I also hope that he will be reassured that adequate mechanisms are in place to ensure that the level of healthcare provision and the prioritisation of healthcare in prisons is suitably maintained.
	Other issues were raised in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked whether the clause we intended to put into the Bill contravened human rights. We responded to the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was entirely happy with our response. At paragraph 48, the committee states:
	"The abolition of this requirement supports the continued improvement of prison health services, exemplified by their recent transfer to the NHS, and brings them into line with health services available to the general population".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made the point that some prisoners suffered from long-term drug addiction and mental health issues; what is known as a dual diagnosis. Our approach as a government to addressing people's mental health and substance misuse treatment needs is set out in the Department of Health's recent guidance on the issue, Dual diagnosis in mental health inpatient and day hospital settings, which was published last October. It is our belief that providing people with mental health and substance misuse problems with the treatment they need should be the norm, not the exception. The draft guidance on dual diagnosis services for prisoners should be issued for consultation by the Department of Health this summer.
	Finally, I think that the transfer of prison health services to the NHS has been a success and that we have a good case to make. Obviously, we are in a paradigm of continued improvement, and that is right, but it is worth saying that in 2003 £118 million was transferred from the Prison Service to the health service. Since 2006-07, £200 million per year has been invested in healthcare. Some £20 million of that investment has been spent on mental health in-reach services to provide professional services inside prisons for the first time. They are based in 102 prisons, and 360 new whole-time equivalent staff have been introduced, whose services are available across the entire prison estate.
	The last two reports from the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, make specific mention of the improvements made in prison healthcare, saying that the involvement of primary care trusts has,
	"undoubtedly assisted the progress towards equivalence of service".
	My case is not that everything in the prison estate is absolutely hunky-dory and as it should be, but it is an improving picture and one that is recognised not just by Anne Owers but more widely. We should seek to build on that.
	The amendment has usefully enabled us to discuss the issue, but I do not believe that it is the right direction of travel. We are now improving healthcare provision for a range of health needs, and the service is more directly tailored to the needs of the prison population. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ramsbotham: I am grateful to the Minister for telling us what the arrangements are and that perhaps my concerns need not be reflected in the Bill. Like everyone else who has spoken, of course, I have been delighted to see the improvements in healthcare in prisons and the impact that bringing in the NHS has undoubtedly had. It is only the way in which you will achieve equivalence, which is the key word in all this.
	I remain concerned that we do not yet know all the details of what the Minister has outlined. He said that there would be a standard to which matters had to conform and which would be guidance to the governor about what was to happen. He referred to a multi-disciplinary team. My concern about multi-disciplinary teams is that teams need a leader, and all the multi-disciplinary bits need to be pulled together. If I am the governor of a busy prison, I want someone who is responsible and accountable to me for making certain that all the things that I require actually happen. That includes healthcare. It is fine that there is a multi-disciplinary team, but I do not want all kinds of people knocking on my door; I want the person responsible coming to me and saying, "This is what is required to be done", and the leader of the team making certain that it happens. The multi-disciplinary team will include people from the NHS organisations and others who come into work.
	I would be grateful if, before Report, the Minister could let us have a copy of the guidance to governors so that we can see them and be satisfied, rather than merely dropping the issue completely. If he will agree to do that, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage, with the clear indication that I may wish to return to it on Report if we do not have the satisfaction of seeing that document.

Baroness Stern: moved Amendment No. 112A:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new Clause—
	"Independent Monitoring Boards
	(1) The boards appointed under section 6 of the PrisonAct 1952 (c. 52) (boards of visitors) are renamed as Independent Monitoring Boards.
	(2) Accordingly, in section 6 of that Act—
	(a) for the sidenote there is substituted "Independent Monitoring Boards";(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for "boards of visitors" there is substituted "group of independent monitors"; and(ii) the words from "of whom" to the end shall cease to have effect;(c) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) The groups so appointed are to be known as Independent Monitoring Boards.";
	(d) in subsection (3) for "boards of visitors" and "a board of visitors" there is substituted respectively "Independent Monitoring Boards" and "an Independent Monitoring Board".
	(3) In section 19 of that Act (right of justices to visit prison), in subsection (3) for "visiting committee or the board of visitors" there is substituted "Independent Monitoring Board".
	(4) In Part 2 of Schedule 1A to the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (public bodies and other persons subject to general statutory duty), there is inserted, in the appropriate place under the heading "Other Bodies Etc.", the following entry—"An Independent Monitoring Board appointed under section 6(2) of the Prison Act 1952.".
	(5) In section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (right to time off for public duties)—
	(a) in subsection (2)(d), for "a board of prison visitors" there is substituted "an Independent Monitoring Board for a prison"; and(b) in subsection (7)(a), for the words from the beginningto "of visitors" there is substituted "Independent Monitoring Board" means a board".
	(6) In section 99 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (conversion of sentence of detention or custody to sentence of imprisonment), in subsection (1)(b) for "boards of visitors" there is substituted "Independent Monitoring Board".
	(7) In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36) (public authorities: other public bodies and offices) there is inserted, in the appropriate place, the following entry—
	"Any Independent Monitoring Board established under section 6(2) of the Prison Act 1952.""

Lord Ramsbotham: I can almost anticipate the words with which this amendment will be greeted. I was moved to table it after reading two separate documents. One was the Bill itself—Clauses 2 to6 are all about the functions of the Secretary of State. The second document had the most confused cover I have ever come across in my life; it is called nomsheadquartersspecial,with a description inside of NOMS headquarters. As we are talking about how the Secretary of State functions and runs the National Offender Manager Service, I would have expected this document to show how direction comes from the top down to the various parts of the system. In vain did I look; there is no mention of the director-general of the Prison Service anywhere; the Director of Probation comes under the management of someone called the Director of Performance and Improvement; and I could not find the chairman of the Youth Justice Board.
	We look forward to debating the recent report from the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and hope that out of it will come something like a women's justice board or a women's commission. But, in view of that, what seemed to be missing was some overarching body through which the Secretary of State directed the affairs and policy in the whole system. It seems that NOMS is really all about commissioning. There are masses of policies on this, that and the other, with boards all over the place and commissioning and contestability programmes and so on, but the people responsible for the management of offenders do not seem to feature in it. I am concerned that the Director of the Probation Service—we spent three days discussing probation—is subsumed under a Director of Performance and Improvement rather than being the leader of an important service in his or her own right.
	I included in my amendment certain things that, ever since becoming involved with the criminal justice system, I have felt are missing in the overall delivery of the services that the system is required to produce. One of those is disseminating policy. What I feel is missing—I make no apologies for referring to it now—is a structure in which responsibility and accountability go very clearly from the top to the bottom. I have mentioned in this House before my concern that within the Prison Service, for example, there is not somebody in charge of women, children or young offenders, other than in high-security prisons. There are policy people but no one is responsible for seeing that things are done consistently in every prison of a particular type throughout the United Kingdom. When I look at examples of good practice, I am desperately concerned that they are not spread. They are not spread because there is no one responsible and accountable for seeing that the overall performance in each prison of that type develops according to practice that they can spread within it. At the same time, there is the frightful problem of prison governors changing. Immediately there is a change of governor, everything in the prison changes rather than the new governor picking up where things have been left off and carrying on consistently with policies, which results in improvements being made and staff knowing where they are.
	If we are talking about a commissioning and contestability environment, with other people coming in, it is desperately important that leadership on what they are meant to do is clear, consistent and well known. I am concerned that, however this is done—no doubt I shall be told that such a board already exists and what I am suggesting is already happening—the evidence is not there on the ground. The end-to-end offender management and partnership that everyone wants needs a structure with people to make it work. Therefore, fully expecting to hear that the Minister does not feel that this should form part of the Bill, I nevertheless feel that it should form part of the discussion on it so that when consideration is given to how it might be processed and how the issues I have raised will be included in how offender management is conducted, it is there for people to see and examine. I think that this is a helpful amendment and I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for moving the amendment. As we discussed Part 1 over a few days, it became increasingly clear that it was difficult to discern the co-ordination between probation delivery and the delivery of services within the prison estate. Although the Bill refers to offender management,the commissioning environment into which we are entering appears to concentrate the effort of the Government on producing organograms about how the commissioning would be done, but we could not see how that was seated within effective and clear lines of accountability and responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is trying to find out from the Government about the overall view by the Secretary of State on where things are going wrong and how to plug the gap.
	The Minister has told us that, in the process of contestability, the Secretary of State would not always wish to commission services himself or herself but would delegate that to local areas. That was her attempt to dissuade me from supporting localism, as I see it. The difficulty is that if the Secretary of State wields the big stick and says to a local probation trust that it is not doing what it should and will not be allowed to commission services, he or she has to have a clear overview of what is happening and needs a clear reporting system up to him or her in order to take the appropriate decisions.
	The Minister may simply say that there are ROMS—regional offender managers—in place and that, as there is a regional structure, we should not worry. The problem is that the documents to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, refers cloud the issue. They look very good as far as concerns management-speak but not in the real world of trying to deliver services to what will be a multiplicity of contracting bodies.
	I am trying to find my way through this mesh of different bodies. If the Secretary of State steps in and says that probation trusts in an area have failed miserably and that he is going to seize power and commission services, how will he make those decisions, given, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, that the organogram we have been looking at seems well and truly to bury probation services?

Lord Ramsbotham: I am most grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive way in which she responded to the amendment and the spirit in which she did so. I would be the last person in the world to want another board imposed. Therefore, I am extremely glad to hear that there is a board, which I hope will take on some of the responsibilities which I listed in the amendment. I was also delighted to hear mention of the future role of the Ministry of Justice and am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in her place. We look forward to taking part in these discussions with her and I was glad that she was here for this amendment to be able to pick up the flavour of people's concerns.
	I was also glad to hear the point about the Corston report because, as the noble Baroness knows, I deferred a Cross-Bench debate that I had secured on account that the Government had not had time to prepare their response. I had agreed to withdraw it until that was done, but the clock is ticking. That was deferred from 9 May and we are now getting on towards the end of June. I hope that it will be soon, because as the Committee has brought out, the needs of women in the criminal justice system increasingly require leadership as well as direction. But in the spirit that the points I have made have been taken on board, are being discussed and are to be taken forward by the Ministry of Justice, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Northbourne: The amendment is not about children who are in prison or about to go to prison, but about the welfare of that small but often disadvantaged subgroup of the nation's children who have a parent or parents in prison. It is also about reducing offending, which is one of the Government's main objectives in the Bill. I shall give a few facts. Dodd and Hunter in 1992 said:
	"There are no accurate, up-to-date estimates of the numbers of imprisoned parents, or children of imprisoned parents, in the UK. The last National Prison Survey in England and Wales reported that 47 per cent of female prisoners and 32 per cent of male prisoners had children living with them before coming to prison".
	It is estimated today that some 150,000 children in the United Kingdom have a parent in prison. Often those children and their families become seriously disadvantaged. They are the innocent victims of imprisonment. In preparing for the amendment I was greatly helped by and wish to give credit to Dr Shad Maruna of Queen's University Belfast and through him to Dr Joseph Murray and Dr David Farrington of the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge. I shall quote first from a report by Murray and Farrington, which is shortly to be published. They have said:
	"It is surprising that researchers and policy makers have largely neglected to consider the effects of parental imprisonment on children. As Shaw in 1987 pointed out over twenty years ago, if we do not attend to the effects of imprisonment on children we run the risk of punishing innocent victims, neglecting seriously an at risk group, and possibly causing crime in the next generation".
	The number of children experiencing parental imprisonment is increasing in the western industrialised countries. Parental imprisonment has been shown to be a factor for child anti-social behaviour, offending, mental health problems, drug abuse, school failure and unemployment. Children of prisoners are at much higher risk than their peers—about three times as great—for their own anti-social behaviour; for mental health it is about twice the risk and probably about the same for educational outcomes. The latest results from the Cambridge study also suggest that they are at risk for drug abuse and unemployment.
	A 2006 Cambridge study of delinquent development—a longitudinal study of 400 males—showed that 48 per cent boys of who were separated because of parental imprisonment in their first 10 years of life were later convicted as adults, compared with only 14 per cent in a control sample whose parents were not imprisoned. Murray and Farrington conclude:
	"Parental imprisonment is a strong risk factor for",
	and a possible cause of,
	"a range of adverse outcomes for children, including anti-social behaviour, offending, mental health problems, drug abuse, school failure, and subsequent unemployment".
	A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report of May 2007 on research carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London confirms the Cambridge findings. It says that,
	"criminal justice and social welfare policy combine to impoverish, disadvantage and exclude prisoners' families, and their children in particular".
	It goes on to point out:
	"Maintaining family relationships during imprisonment was financially draining".
	Yet, at the same time,
	"families are officially recognised as significant in enabling the successful resettlement of prisoners".
	The Social Exclusion Unit identified that fact in 2002, so that information has been available for some time.
	I could produce more evidence, but the Committee has probably had enough, and the examples that I have given are probably sufficient to establish that the impact of imprisonment on children is a serious social issue, which all those concerned with offender management should have at the front of their minds when taking decisions about imprisonment, prisoners and prisoner management. They should consider in particular the way in which prisoners' ongoing relationship with their children can best be facilitated and fostered before, during and after imprisonment. If the son becomes a criminal as a result of the father's imprisonment, whether or not the father reoffends, the offender management service will have failed. The importance of this issue justifies it having a place in the Bill. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: From these Benches, I also very much support this amendment. I remember, not so very long ago, standing in the queue to get into a prison to take a confirmation. A carer and the young black child with her were just in front of me, but when they got to the relevant authority at the prison gate they were told that they were 10 minutes too late to get in. In spite of my efforts and those of others, they were turned away. We had a child in floods of tears, not able to go and see its parent, which was a salutary experience for me.
	To back up the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in the two prisons in my present diocese and the four in my previous diocese, the work of voluntary organisations, including Church-based organisations—the Mothers' Union works in 50 or more prisons in this country, running play centres for children, homework clubs that enable children to work with their fathers, and so forth—is utterly dependent not only on the quality of prison governorship but on the quality and attitudes of the prison staff. Anything that we can do to underline that this is a basic duty, by which everybody has to abide, ought to be welcomed.

Lord Hylton: I support this amendment. My noble friend Lord Northbourne has already given some evidence from England of the probability that the children of prisoners will commit crimes themselves. That is confirmed from experience in Northern Ireland, where I still have the privilege of being president of NIACRO.
	Some years ago, our organisation published a report on the impact of imprisonment on spouses and children, entitled The Silent Sentence. Responding to those needs, we first organised welfare and human rights advice—usually for the wife, who was outside the prison. We also arranged special weekends for mothers and children, and maybe occasionally for the odd father. Later on, we developed what came tobe known as child-centred visits, where special arrangements were made with the prison so that the child could easily and fully relate to his father. That entailed a good deal of co-operation from the Prison Service, which to the best of my knowledge still continues in at least one Northern Ireland prison.
	Separately from that work, it has occurred to me that when a woman with the care of children is sentenced, there might be time allowed before actually entering prison so that she can make the best possible arrangements for the future care of the children for whom she is responsible. I have taken that up with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, but I am not sure whether we have made progress. I hope that we have, but I am uncertain. With those words I commend the amendment.

Lord Judd: I warmly support the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Whether or not the amendment becomes part of the Bill, it was right for him to draw our attention to this crucial issue. It is tremendously important for my noble friend to provide reassurances not just on how this matter will be kept under review, but on how we always endeavour to improve performance.
	I hope that the House will forgive me for repeating an anecdote that I have previously recounted in this Chamber. When I visited Holloway Prison with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I was astounded when very concerned prison officers told me that sometimes, when they had stayed beyond their normal hours to receive prisoners, they discovered that some of the prisoners had left unattended children at home. It is scandalous that that could ever happen in a civilised society. It may be an extreme example, but it illustrates the need for constant vigilance.
	The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is very important. We should not just state that it is the responsibility of those managing offenders to promote the welfare of children. All relevant parts of public and social services concerned with children—not least education—should have very high in their priorities a focus on prisoners' children and their needs. Co-operation is needed.
	During recent deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on asylum, I was far from alone in the committee in recognising that our system lacked an identifiable champion of the child. Parents in prison are never going to have the same status in the care of and arrangements for their children as parents outside. That will not happen. In that context we need to be certain that people with specific responsibility pursue what parents would normally vigorously pursue on behalf of their children. This is another example of the sensitivity, compassion and imagination of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I am sure that I speak for many other noble Lords. His comments need to be taken extremely seriously.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I, too, support the amendment. We welcome the Government's amendment that places in the Bill, under Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, a duty on probation boards and/or trusts or other providers to co-operate with local children's trust arrangements to improve the well-being of children and young people. The Government's amendment also, under Section 11 of that Act, places on providers a need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. We also support the fact that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, places a duty of care for children right at the beginning of Part 3 of the Bill, thus affirming its primacy as the number one priority regarding children.
	The issues surrounding offender management discussed by this Committee in the past few days have been curiously free of almost any mention of children—who are deeply involved and affected by what happens to any member of their family who becomes involved in the criminal justice system—except when we discussed staff training today.
	I continuously observed the relevance of children's needs in our visitor centre at Pentonville—the very first such centre, back in 1972. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, resonates with my experience. We would deal with children who kept under their hats the fact that they had lost a parent to prison and they were beginning to create anxieties at school. At home, wives would often be left high and dry because their partner had not come home and he was under lock and key, and we saw what that could do to the family's dynamics. Our centre has given rise to the network of visitor centres that we have today throughout the country, where inter alia children's needs are recognised and can be supported. That work is choreographed and significantly developed by Action for Prisoners' Families, of which I am a patron.
	A few years ago a report on the effect on children of losing a parent to prison, No-one's ever asked me, gave a most poignant account entirely through the children's own words of what it meant to them to lose a parent to prison. In effect, it is a bereavement. As we have heard, every year there are tens of thousands of these children who lose a parent to prison. Also, a recent report on the effect of losing a sibling to prison highlighted just how important relationships with siblings are. Indeed, current thinking suggests that they may be of far greater importance than those with a parent for children growing up and particularly at a certain age. To lose, say, an elder brother was, for younger siblings, deeply traumatic.
	It is well established, as we have heard, that a child who loses a parent to prison becomes significantly more likely to be involved in the criminal justice system. For these and many more reasons, which I will not elaborate on now, the very real importance of the duty of care at least having pole position in the Bill is clear and we support the amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: I also support my noble friend's amendment and, in doing so, focus on one question about the booking of visits and the booking process. In the past I have found, in telephoning a number of prisons, that it is possible to raise someone after five minutes or so, but it has taken me up to half an hour to get through on the telephone. I understand that at that time the Government were seeking to make improvements in this area. I would be grateful to hear reassurance from the Minister that there is now a maximum expected time and a way of monitoring that, ensuring that booking visits is easy to do.
	What arrangements are there to ensure that children in public care also have the opportunity to visit their siblings or parent while in custody? Children in care feel very passionately about keeping in touch with the family. Many of them have spoken to me about their wish to keep in touch with their siblings as far as possible.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on giving the Committee the opportunity to have this important debate.
	Noble Lords have, perhaps understandably, concentrated on the aspect of the amendment that addresses the issue of the children of those serving custodial sentences. However, in drafting his amendment the noble Lord was rightly very careful to direct our attention across the whole of the offender estate. No doubt all noble Lords can see how important it is for offender management—whether of those in prison or those in the community—to have regard to the welfare of children. I do not think that the Government will resile from that—in fact, just the opposite. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is at the heart of everything that they do. The difficulty is always in balancing that against the other duties of those who must also protect the public.
	I would certainly wish to see any offender management system have close regard to the welfare of children. There is no doubt that there is a beneficial effect on offenders if they maintain contact with their families, although they may not view it as such at the time. I am very aware that some fathers, in particular, do not wish to see their children ever again. They want to move on and leave that family tie behind, but it may well benefit offenders if they do not do so. Retaining contact with their children may be part of their rehabilitation. I am certainly aware that it will benefit most children to have contact with the parent, but that is not so in every case. We should always remember that contact with a parent has blighted the lives of some children and will continue to do so. Therefore, contact with a parent may not necessarily always be conducive to a child's welfare, and that is the difficult balance that must be addressed in any offender management system.
	I anticipate that the Minister will say some very warm words but not accept the amendment as drafted. I hope that, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, she will be able to say that the Government will reflect on the best ways in which the spirit of what he is trying to achieve can be delivered.
	I was very grateful to the noble Lord for being courteous enough to circulate to all those interested in the Bill, in advance of this debate, the research by Murray and Farrington of Cambridge University on offending rates among children who are separated from a parent as a result of that parent's incarceration. The figures certainly show that more research is needed to see what we can understand and draw from the results, which, so far, are not in any way conclusive. However, it is clear that programmes such as Storybook Dads—a service that allows prisoners to record bedtime stories on tapes to send to their children—simply would not have been possible without having been established by dedicated local initiatives. We come back to the importance of local initiatives, as opposed to nationally driven ones, and the fact that sometimes they provide the best way of assisting children. I do not propose to go into more detail on them—we are all aware of the great variety of local initiatives that can assist children—but it is important that between now and Report we reflect on the best ways of ensuring the welfare of children who are not in the prison estate themselves but are either separated from their parents or seeing the impact of crime on the family.
	Reference has been made to the proposals of the noble and learned, Lord Woolf, on cluster prisons. We have all spoken at some time or another about the benefits that might accrue from such a system but I am not sure how the Government would deliver it. The reality is that prison estates are bursting at the seams—I understand that they are now either full or about to be full—but it is one solution that is very much worth bearing in mind.
	It is clear that, as noble Lords have said, for families trying to visit a parent or parents in prison—some children have both parents serving custodial sentences—life is not difficult in the sense in which the rest of us may find it difficult; it becomes almost impossible for them not only to carry on their own lives with any sense of normality but to avoid becoming part of the offending culture in the future. That is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is really trying to achieve by raising the debate—to make us aware that if we do not put the welfare of children right at the beginning of our consideration, we could end up with the children of current offenders simply being offenders themselves in the future. That does not do anybody any good.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for providing us with the opportunity to discuss these very important issues. I share his passion about this particular group of young people and, indeed, his passion for trying to ensure that fathers play a more active and reflective role in the lives of their children. Noble Lords will know that this issue was considered in Committee in the other place. James Brokenshire helpfully tabled an amendment relating to the Children Act, and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Vernon Coaker, agreed to bring forward a government amendment in due course. Amendment No. 132, which we will discuss shortly, fulfils his commitment.
	Perhaps in parenthesis I may say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, how much I echo her experience regarding young children. I am very grateful that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chelmsford, added his wisdom in this area. I know how much he and those in the faith community—I do not just talk about the Christian community but all the faith communities—do in this regard. It is a very important point. I hope that I can fulfil my noble friend Lord Judd's aspiration and give a lot of reassurance about what we are doing now.
	Bearing in mind all the comments that have been made, it would be helpful if I give a little background to the work we have been doing to tackle this issue. In particular, I hope to address the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the amendment. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we very much take on board the role that poor relationships could play. As part of healing it is very important not just for the offender to move on but for the child to move on.
	The Government collectively committed to tackling the seven pathways to reducing reoffending when we published the National Reducing Re-offending Delivery Plan in November 2005. The children and families pathway of that plan is dedicated to dealing with the very issues on which noble Lords have spoken so eloquently today—I include all noble Lords in that.
	We do not underestimate the challenges involved. Our up-to-date estimate is that each year 160,000 children in England and Wales may be affected by the imprisonment of a parent, leading to behavioural problems, poor performance at school and mental health problems. So factors such as separation from a parent, the mental health of a child's mother, family conflict and loss of income can all affect outcomes for children; and families of offenders are likely to have these problems and more.
	I do not shirk from the enormity of the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made clear, boys are three times more likely to be at risk of being convicted of a crime if their father has a criminal conviction. We take that very seriously, as I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, does. That is why the children and families pathway is dedicated to improving support for the children and families of offenders. It aims to ensure that the interests of these children are addressed in implementing Every Child Matters, which is the Government's strategy for ensuring the well-being of children and young people from birth to the age of 19. Aims for the children and families pathway include improving parenting and relationships skills; developing better materials, advice and guidance; and a more family-friendly focus in prisons and through visitor centres—all of which we have touched on this afternoon.
	Considerable progress has been made, often in partnership with the voluntary sector, as several noble Lords have said, including the establishment of pathway boards, which are now in all the regions. Progress is overseen by the National Reducing Re-offending Programme Board, reporting to the Inter-Ministerial Group on Reducing Re-offending, which I set up last summer. I did that because I absolutely understood that we had to have a conjoined effort to make a difference in reducing reoffending and that it was only by so doing that we would be able to move forward.
	I can reassure the Committee that, during the whole of this period, I have had a number of discussions with my honourable friend Phil Hope, my noble friend Lord Adonis and my right honourable friend Beverley Hughes about how we make the issue more potent.
	We want to reduce the risk of reoffending, improve the life chances of those children and reduce the risk of inter-generational offending. To support those aims, the National Offender Management Service and the Department for Education and Skills are undertaking a joint review to consider how to support the children of prisoners to achieve better outcomes. I respectfully say that outcomes are what we should focus on. We are consulting widely and the project will report to Ministers shortly. We will be anxious to look at its conclusions.
	The outcomes of that project will build on the considerable work happening already at regional and local level. I commend all those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, have commended Safe Ground and the other initiatives. I must tell the Committee that a lot is going on. In the West Midlands, a£2 million pathfinder has been established under the "invest to save" budget to provide practical support for children and families, including family learning and parenting skills, and to raise awareness by mainstream services of the needs of that group.
	The Eastern Region Families Partnership provides family support in prisons through visits centres, enabling children to have meaningful contact through child-friendly visits, parenting courses, and linking-up with local schools.
	In the north-west, Partners of Prisoners has Family Link workers involved in Dad's Days, enabling children to visit fathers in a relaxed atmosphere. The team has just received a Community Care Award. They are doing really well. It is really exciting stuff.
	Sixty-six prisons participated in the recent Action for Prisoners' Families Family Friendly challenge — benefiting more than 1,200 children with quality time spent with their fathers.
	HMP/YOI Parc, run by G4S, has launched the Parc Supporting Families initiative, which includes key community services such as Home-Start and Community First, and representatives from prisoners' families. It is taking forward an exciting programme of work, including upgrading the visits area and the visiting experience to make Parc more child and family-friendly, with monthly family visits. Other work includes a partnership with a voluntary sector organisation, PACT, to establish a family development worker and with Barnardo's to pilot parenting work with prisoners, which is mirrored by support in the community for their partners. Parc prison has also developed bespoke material for children to help them understand the experience of their parent in prison, and is actively promoting family and e-learning opportunities for children and families during visits.
	So I share that passion. Although we recognise that there is much more to do, I hope it is clear to the Committee that we are fully committed to ensuring the welfare of the children of offenders.
	I am very happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that his amendment is wholly unnecessary. Governors of prisons and secure training centres, and directors of private prisons and secure training centres, are already under a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children by virtue of Part 2 of the Children Act 2004. Local probation boards are also covered by those provisions, and as I have said, these duties need to be updated to reflect the new arrangements proposed in this Bill, and it is this that government Amendment No. 132 will address.
	I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, a more satisfactory answer than perhaps he thought he received in relation to issues with children. We are moving forward. I have a very detailed answer for the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which I shall outline in brief. We acknowledge that this has been a problem, but many things are in place. To save time I shall write to the noble Earl about those, but I can certainly reassure him that this issue has not dropped off the radar. We are focusing on it and things are getting better. The position is not quite as wonderful as any of us would like, but it is a lot better than it used to be and the improvements are considerable.
	With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Northbourne: I am always happy to withdraw an amendment when the noble Baroness smiles at me. I am enormously impressed with what is being done. I know of the noble Baroness's own commitment, and that of Phil Hope and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. They are committed in this area, but that does not necessarily mean that every prison officer is committed. My argument is that we have to change the culture of the Prison Service and the Probation Service, and I still think that there may be a case for a differently drafted amendment to achieve that.
	In the context of what my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham said about the Family Man, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who was here earlier, has not stayed to tell us about it—I think probably due to excessive modesty because it is run by his wife. Finally, I refer again to the point made by my noble friend Lord Listowel about the value of the telephone. There is very strong evidence to show that for a child, a regular weekly telephone call from his father, whether he is in prison or in Australia, will make a huge difference to the child's confidence that his father still loves him and cares about him. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount Bridgeman: I should like to make it clear that we are not opposing the introduction of the clause. I want to concentrate more on the points made in another place, bearing in mind—this might come as no surprise to your Lordships—that only one hour was allocated there for discussion of this clause.
	My honourable friend the Member for Hornchurch, James Brokenshire, raised a number of issues that are still in need of attention. The Minister, Mr Sutcliffe, noted that failure to comply with a mandatory polygraph testing pilot could result in offenders being recalled to prison. Given that polygraph tests are to be part of a licensing condition, can the Minister assure noble Lords that there would be a guarantee of the proper punishment in the form of reincarnation—I am sorry, re-incarceration—of offenders who breach this condition?
	Further to this point, the Minister accepted that a failure to establish a proper address would critically undermine the condition that offenders on a polygraph condition must report regularly to a police station.Mr James Brokenshire welcomed the amendments allowing local government representatives access to offender data, but I was disappointed that the Minister did not address this issue head-on and did not go further to reassure colleagues in the other place that plans are in place to improve multi-agency public protection arrangements and rectify the disturbing failures in confirming and identifying the location of offenders. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance on these precise matters today.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think a number of Members of the Committee were quite enchanted by it. My noble friend says it is not an imprisonable offence, so the noble Viscount may feel assured by that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is right about the restrictive way in which the measure is to be used. I hope I shall be able to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that the proposed use is safe and satisfactory. It will enable us to test and, basically, taste and see. Protecting the public from the problem of sexual abuse is a matter that the Government have taken very seriously and given the highest priority. In fact, it has been given the highest priority by all of us engaged on this issue, irrespective of political party or the side of the House on which we sit.
	With the introduction of the multi-agency public protection arrangements, we have ensured that agencies work together to supervise offenders in the community, with greater resources directed towards those assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm to the public. Although I hear what the noble Viscount says about some of the failings, he will recognise that there have been enormous improvements because we have been able to implement these macro-arrangements, which were not available before 1997 but are so now. I think that none of us would wish to remove them.
	We recognise that we have a responsibility, therefore, to continue to refine and develop the ways in which we manage sex offenders, particularly as new technologies become available. On 19 June last year, the Home Secretary commissioned a review of the management of child sex offenders, which is due to be published shortly. Among the range of measures aimed at protecting children from sexual abuse, it will recommend a trial of mandatory polygraph testing for sex offenders on licence in the community.
	As the noble and learned Lord knows, the polygraph is a device which measures changes in breathing, heart activity and sweating, all of which are known to be related to deception. We will use the polygraph to monitor whether offenders are engaging in risky behaviour or in behaviour which puts them in breach of their licence conditions.
	Between September 2003 and September 2005 the National Probation Service conducted a pilot study in which sex offenders on licence volunteered to undertake the polygraph test. The results of the pilot were published in December 2006. Nearly 350 sex offenders took part in the pilot as part of their supervision and treatment process. Examiners reported that new disclosures relevant to treatment and supervision were made in 79 per cent of first examinations and 78 per cent of re-tests, and nearly 30 per cent of these disclosures took place in the post-interview that followed the offender's questioning while attached to the polygraph; in other words, after being challenged with the result of the test.
	Probation staff overwhelmingly found the polygraph results helpful in their risk assessment of these offenders. I emphasise that it is a risk assessment. The polygraph is a diagnostic tool among others that enables those tasked with managing the risk to better assess that management. But there is an issue—almost like a fly in the ointment—because, given that a self-selecting sample was involved in the pilot and there was no randomised control group for comparison purposes, it is not possible to attribute with any certainty the new disclosuresto the effect of the polygraph test. On average, only43 per cent of those eligible volunteered for testing, and we need to be concerned about what was going on with those who did not volunteer.
	We have listened to the helpful debates in the House of Commons and we believe that, if polygraph testing is to be introduced, we should do so cautiously, learning from the small-scale implementation. This will give us an opportunity to assess any problems of process as well as being clearer on the expected benefits. These clauses therefore introduce mandatory polygraph testing for the categories of offenders defined in the Bill who are subject to licensed release from prison having been sentenced to at least 12 months' imprisonment. It will be piloted initially in three probation regions.
	We will commission a research study to run alongside the mandatory testing pilot, with a view to determining whether the polygraph test is efficacious in assisting the collection of useful evidence about offenders' behaviour and whether it genuinely facilitates effective offender management without disproportionality affecting the rights of those tested. We think it is a sensible way forward.
	I say to the noble and learned Lord that the Secretary of State will have the power to issue clear procedural guidance or rules on this. We understand everything he says about safeguards, probity, the process and all the issues that will have to be grappled with. We must look at Article 8 of the European convention, consider each case individually and ensure that we are sound on those issues too.
	As I explained, polygraph tests will be required as a condition of prisoners' licences on release from prison, so we will do that in an appropriate way. We want to establish whether information from the polygraph will provide offender managers with an additional risk management tool that is useful in its own right. We do not intend to use polygraph evidence in criminal proceedings against an individual who has taken a test. It is a diagnostic management tool that we hope will assist practitioners to come to better assessments of the risk these offenders pose, particularly if they are in the community. Only if it can be shown that polygraph testing is a useful and objective additional tool in assessing and managing the risk posed by sex offenders will we return to this House to seek an affirmative resolution to extend the mandatory testing to all probation areas. We anticipate that a study of this magnitude will take at least three years to complete, for all the reasons I have given.
	Given those safeguards, and bearing in mind the potential benefits of polygraph testing in protecting the public against the dangers of sexual abuse, I propose that Clauses 24 to 26 stand part of the Bill. I will pray in aid what I have just said when moving our amendment. I do not propose, unless asked by noble Lords to do so, to say much more. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his opposition to the Question that the clause stand part.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The reason I did not go through the details was that I rather assumed, perhaps presumptuously, that everyone was welcoming the fact that we have agreed with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee over the negative resolution, but I thank the noble Baroness for reading that into the record. I also thank her for acknowledging that we have once again listened with real care to the committee and have done what it so wisely advised. I thank the committee too for its advice.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to AmendmentsNos. 117, 119, 122 and 123. I tabled the amendments in response to a briefing I received from the Judicial Policy and Practice Committee of the Magistrates' Association, which I thank for its information.
	Detention and training orders are in two parts, the first in custody and the second under supervision in the community. At present the young person or trainee must be placed, during the custodial part, in one of the types of secure accommodation listed in Section 107 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Clause 30 seeks to amend that Act by substituting "youth detention" accommodation for "secure" accommodation. That is to give the Home Secretary powers to provide accommodation that is both open and run by or on behalf of a local authority, with the possibility of placing a young person in an open children's home as well as in a secure children's home.
	The Magistrates' Association considers that those powers may be too wide for two reasons. First, the making of a detention and training order placing the young person in custody is only carried out as the last resort, and the proposal to make that accommodation open in any way goes against this principle. Secondly, says the association, this power will allow the young person ordered into custody to be placed in a children's home—private or local authority—where other young people, possibly without a criminal record, are already being housed. The association says that while it is responsive to the requirements to provide a type of accommodation that fulfils the needs of extremely vulnerable children, it considers that the wording of the Bill could lead to the criminalisation of other young people. Accordingly, it recommends that the clause be amended so that young people are placed in youth detention accommodation of an appropriate secure nature, given the individual's circumstance.
	It is on that basis that I sought the assistance of the Public Bill Office on how best to table an amendment to reflect the concerns put forward by the Magistrates' Association, and I invite the Minister to address those concerns. I beg to move.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: Clause 30 is designed to remove the requirement that children given a DTO by the court—which means that the child is a persistent offender, and if they were older they would be looking at a custodial sentence—should serve that sentence in a secure setting such as an STC or a YOI. Instead, they could be placed in some other form of "youth detention accommodation". That could be an open local authority residential home or some other accommodation as specified by order. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seek to modify the requirements specified in the Bill for accommodation,
	"of an appropriate secure nature given the individual's circumstances".
	That is, of course, the ideal.
	The Government are moving towards a position which appears to acknowledge that the use of STCs or YOIs need not necessarily be appropriate andto that extent we welcome their thinking. However, this begs a lot of questions. "Youth detention accommodation" is so vague and imprecise as to be almost meaningless and requires a great deal more explanation and detail. For example, there is no indication of the extent to which a child's best interests are to be considered at the outset or whether a full assessment of need or risk is to be taken first—both absolutely essential for an appropriate placement. Will there be a clear statement in law that the purpose of sentencing is to improve the well-being of the child and to prepare him for later life? What sort of number are the Government anticipating and therefore what number of alternative settings and places is to be made available? Above all, what will the non-secure detention accommodation be? What will it offer? What kind of specialist provision will be available? And behind all this is the question, "Is it a cost-cutting exercise?". To do things properly, all that will have to be spelled out.
	One of the anxieties expressed by several organisations, including the Magistrates' Association, is whether children who have been involved in criminal or offending behaviour could be placed in residential children's homes—open or secure—with children whose needs are quite different, though just as great, but who might be significantly and adversely affected by being with such children. What the Government are proposing, however, is potentially very important. I for one have argued long and hard against the incarceration of children, particularly very young children, in STCs—the child prisons which are a unique feature of this Government and widely condemned elsewhere in Europe. Four hundred miles up the road from here in Scotland, they do not exist and there are no plans to emulate them.
	The appetite for incarcerating children is growing. The number of under-18s in custody is almost 60 per cent higher than it was in the 1990s, the number of children in YOIs assessed as "vulnerable" rose from 432 in 2001-02 to 3,337 in 2003-04, and the levels of self-harm in STCs rose by 803 per cent between 2001 and 2004. Most ghastly of all, three children have actually died in STCs, one at the hands of staff while being restrained using a practice called a double-seated embrace, which has now been forbidden pending a better understanding of the physiology of children and what restraints can be more appropriately used. If ever there was a need to change our treatment of these extremely difficult children, it is now, but is what the Government are offering a real opportunity—a real shift in thinking and practice?
	To provide more appropriately for these extremely vulnerable, disturbed, difficult and dysfunctional children we need to have a range of appropriate alternatives and I am not aware of any such plans. We need to reverse the recent trend for closing secure and semi-secure local authority children's homes, someof which have been deemed to be too small or performing inadequately. With government help, and with the diversion perhaps of funds from children's prisons, change and improvement would be perfectly possible. If greater powers and responsibilities were given to local authorities—as in Scotland—rather than to the YJB, which commissions all these prison places, and if there were a duty of care through the Every Child Mattersagenda and the children's trusts, then appropriate local provision could be put in place. As it is, a third of children in YOIs are identified as "vulnerable" and their needs dictate that local authority provision is more appropriate.
	We need far more secure or semi-secure children's homes, ideally ones where there can be a progression from secure to open conditions as the child progresses; more specialised provision such as therapeutic communities for very vulnerable children at risk of suicide—we were discussing one such case at Question Time today and there have been 29 deaths since the 1990s—residential special schools for those with additional learning difficulties, and there are many such children in our prisons; mental health settings; and above all places where children can be near home instead of 50 miles or more away. This last suggestion mirrors the recommendations of the Corston report on women in prisons and, while it is not relevant to this amendment, the needs are in many ways similar.
	If the Government were committed to providing a fraction of this, it would be the best possible legacy they could leave this country. But to do so in a token fashion, or without adequate care and planning—for example, the inappropriate placing together of children—would be a tragedy. Can the Minister therefore give the House a clearer idea of what the Government mean by "youth detention accommodation"; and say what alternative provision they will make and when, and what sort of resources they are prepared to allocate to such important provision?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the concern that a custodial sentence should be distinguishable from other types of sentence, and that it should be used only for young people who need to be removed from the community. I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says and the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on that. The Government's position is, I hope, clear: for young people under 18, custody should be used only in the last resort, but for a very small minority of offenders in that age group the possibility of a custodial sentence should continue to be available. I know what she is saying about numbers but she will appreciate that, regrettably, a cadre of young people have now committed some extraordinarily dangerous offences and wehave to respond to those offences robustly and appropriately—we have no choice.
	Custody is necessary, therefore, to protect the public from those offenders, and there is clearly no point in a custodial sentence that does not do that. The Magistrates' Association believes quite rightly that it is for the court to decide whether an offender needs to go into custody. If the court decides that he or she should do so, it is not for the Government or the Youth Justice Board to second-guess that decision. That is the position and it is one with which we and the Magistrates' Association are in complete agreement.
	However, two key points need to be taken into account. The first is that the essential purpose of a custodial sentence is to remove the offender from the community. The degree of security needed to prevent him or her from returning to the community prematurely is a secondary matter which the Government have customarily been responsible for deciding. In the case of adults, the Prison Service previously decided and now the National Offender Management Service decides whether an offender should be placed in a closed or open prison, and NOMS manages their transition from one to the other. In the case of under-18s sentenced to detention and training orders, the Youth Justice Board has a concurrent placement power and in practice all placements are decided by the board. Most of those sentenced to a DTO are placed in secure conditions but they can be, and some are, placed in the open young offender institution at Thorn Cross near Warrington. Whether open or closed conditions are more appropriate is therefore already a question that has to be addressed, and the board has to decide which of the three quite different types of establishment—a young offender institution, a secure training centre, or the secure children's homes referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater—a detainee should be placed in.
	There is concern that accommodation primarily intended for children who are not offenders is to be added to the list of youth detention accommodation. But secure children's homes fit that description and they have been accommodating offenders for a number of years, so the proposed change is not breaking new ground, either in allowing the YJB to place detainees in open conditions or in allowing it to place them in establishments that are primarily for non-offenders. It should also be remembered that it is quite common for a young person in the care of a local authority to serve the community part of a DTO in a local authority home, where he or she will be living with other young people who have not offended.
	What we are proposing is not a radical departure but, I humbly suggest, a minor modification of the existing arrangements. Nevertheless, we appreciate that the decision to place a young person outside the existing secure estate is important. Where that might be done immediately from court, sentencers will wish to be involved. We will therefore issue guidance to ensure that the court is aware of any such cases and has the opportunity to give a view. Clearly, any view expressed by the court in such cases would be a key factor in the eventual placement decision. I am very grateful for the indication of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. She is saying that this may be case-specific and appropriate for us to do in relation to a child who may need to be dealt with robustly but may not need to be incarcerated for various specific reasons. We have a handful of these cases, which we are dealing with already. I hope that on that basis, the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Linklater, will feel content.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: Will the Minister acknowledge the key difference between secure children's home accommodation, which is absolutely secure and where in places such as Scotland and elsewhere in Europe the children who commit the most serious crimes are placed, and penal custody of young children? There is a very important philosophical difference that separates us. We believe that for children—those 17 and under—we should be going for secure conditions, which are often absolutely necessary and appropriate.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendments in this group remove from the Bill two provisions consequential to Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The section, which has yet to be commenced, abolishes the young adult sentence of detention in a young offender institution. I will explain briefly the purposes of subsection (5) and the other parts of Clause 30 we are proposing to remove as well as the purpose of Clause 31, and then say why we propose to remove them.
	When DYOI is abolished, young offender institutions may cease to be provided for young people over 18. If they were no longer provided, it would no longer be possible to transfer young people sentenced to a detention and training order to a young offender institution when they reached the age of 18. If that were indeed the outcome, it would be necessary to have a power to place them in prison, where contemporaries of theirs, who were 18 at the time of conviction, would be sent under existing legislation. Clause 30(5) would make it possible to place 18 year-old DTO detainees in that way.
	Although this is a purely consequential change, it has been the focus of some concern. Clearly, moving a young person who may be vulnerable into an adult establishment would be a serious step. The Government fully recognise that and have given assurances that proper safeguards would be put in place to ensure that transfer to prison would take place only in appropriate cases, with due consideration to the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights and to meeting the needs of vulnerable individuals. Nevertheless, concern persists, and it has been suggested that the Government were wrong to seek to make this change at this time.
	While I understand—and share—concern about the need to safeguard vulnerable young people, I am not sure how it could be wrong for the Government to seek to make their proposed legislation consistent with legislation that Parliament has already approved. But I accept that we will need to have a general discussion of custodial provision for young adults once the package of measures I announced in my Written Statement on 8 May has been evaluated. It will in any case be necessary to make some further legislative change before detention in a young offender institution can be abolished. Therefore, in spirit of goodwill and comity, the Government have accepted that the change that we proposed to make through subsection (5) and the related parts of Clause 30 can be considered at a later date. The purpose of Clause 31 is similarly to reflect the change made by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 to the minimum age of imprisonment. Clause 31 alters the age at which certain sentences of detention, to which offenders under the age of 21 may be liable, can be converted into sentences of imprisonment. As with the changes proposed in Clause 30, we accept that this change can be considered at a later date. I hope that I have given considerable pleasure on this occasion to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. I beg to move

Baroness Stern: moved Amendment No. 124:
	After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
	"Young offenders not to be detained in prisons
	(1) In section 27(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58) (remand of persons aged 17 to 20) omit the words—
	(a) ", if the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that a remand centre is available for the reception from the court of persons of his class or description,", and(b) "and, if it has not been so notified, it shall commit him to a prison."
	(2) In section 43(2) of the Prisons Act 1952 (c. 52) (remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres) paragraph (c). is omitted
	(3) For section 106 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) there is substituted—
	"106 Interaction with sentences of detention in a young offender institution
	(1) Where a court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution in the case of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order, the sentence shall take effect as follows—
	(a) if the offender has been released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102 above, at the beginning of the day on which it is passed;(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102 above.
	(2) Where a court makes a detention and training order in the case of an offender who is subject to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, the order shall take effect as follows—
	(a) if the offender has been released under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release of prisoners), at the beginning of the day on which it is made;(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released under that Part.
	(3) Subsection (1)(a) above has effect subject to section 105(3)(a) above and subsection (2)(a) above has effect subject to section 116(6)(b) below.
	(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, where at any time an offender is subject concurrently—
	(a) to a detention and training order, and(b) to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,he shall be treated for the purposes of sections 102 to 105 above and of section 98 above (place of detention), Chapter IV of this Part (return to detention) and Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release) as if he were subject only to the one of them that was imposed on the later occasion.
	(5) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall require the offender to be released in respect of either the order or the sentence unless and until he is required to be released in respect of each of them.
	(6) Where, by virtue of any enactment giving a court power to deal with a person in a way in which a court on a previous occasion could have dealt with him, a detention and training order for any term is made in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18, the person shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution for the same term."
	(4) Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court ServicesAct 2000 (c. 43) (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life, etc.) is repealed."

Lord Judd: I must apologise for being temporarily absent when the noble Baroness introduced the amendment. There is very little to add to the case that she ably made, except to say that I sometimes feel that in these difficult areas where there is always a process of rationalisation about why the ultimate conclusion cannot be reached, the ultimate conclusion is not reached until one makes a firm law that it mustnot happen. If it must not happen, alternative arrangements have to be made.
	The noble Baroness was right to probe the extent of a demonstrable commitment to achieving that objective. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on this matter, because, as we said on a previous, not unrelated, amendment, this is not just a theoretical consideration. There have been too many instances of things going badly wrong. For that reason, we have reached a time when it should not happen. The Government have to find a way of saying that, so that the necessary alternative arrangements are in place.

Lord Hylton: My noble friend is right to move this probing amendment. Every day as I come to work here, I see the white Serco vans manoeuvring in and out of Horseferry magistrates' court. However, I would like to probe in a parallel but slightly different direction the following matter, which seems on the face of it paradoxical. Local authority secure homes are closing down in many different areas, while secure training centres for young offenders are opening. Local authority secure homes will almost always be much smaller in capacity. Therefore, they are more likely to be near the families and friends of those confined within them. Are the secure training centres able to provide important training that is not available in local authority homes?

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I, too, support this probing amendment. Quite a number of us in the Chamber do not think young offenders should be in prison—there should be separate and different facilities for them. Another point to be taken into account is the enormous percentage of crimes that have taken place as a result of the churn of young people coming out of prisons or other establishment and going straight back in. As my noble friend Lady Stern said, peer pressure may have something to do with that. But there is surely a counter to that which, during this period of total overcrowding of prisons, can hardly begin to get off the ground—we all know that whether we acknowledge it or not. With a degree of partnership between everyone involved in this whole sphere, much more attention could be paid to deterring the young from getting on that cycle of reoffending.
	I know that everybody knows that point and supports it, but nothing like enough facilities go towards achieving it. It is obviously an area where the voluntary, statutory and employing sectors couldall get involved to help provide the training, accommodation and positive support so that the maximum number do not go back on the churn.
	I hope that rather more consideration will be given to this issue. I would be reassured to hear the Minister give us a more positive idea of how they are tackling this group so that these considerations do not have to be made at such an inappropriate moment. Young people should be treated separately and vulnerable young people up to the age of 21 are particularly in need of our help. As we all know—we have discussed it before—a huge proportion of them come from families where offending has been happening for generations. We used to call that the cycle of deprivation: I forget what it is currently called, but it amounts to the same thing. I hope that we will have a full account of what the Minister has in mind.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We all got there in the end. I tabled Amendment No. 125 in response to a very helpful briefing from the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. The Committee will be aware that members include organisations such as Barnardo's, the Children's Rights Alliance for England and the NSPCC among many others. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Ramsbotham, for adding their names to the amendment.
	This matter was raised by my honourable friend Mr Edward Garnier in Committee in another place way back on 23 January, reported at col. 204 of Commons Hansard. I make no apology for bringing this matter back for debate tonight. When my honourable friend withdrew the amendment, he made it clear that we did not consider this merely a debating exercise. An important point about humanity lies at the core of our amendment, which we believe must be addressed.
	Clause 32 sets out arrangements for juveniles tobe escorted securely between any forms of youth detention accommodation. We hope that the debate on this clause will offer the opportunity to address the significant concerns that we have about the conditions and treatment of children during transportation from both court to custody and between establishments. The conditions in which the children are transported are often very poor. Young people report spending lengthy periods in what are only, after all, sweatboxes, without access to food and water or regular toilet breaks. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice points out that such treatment may be incompatible with the United Kingdom's human rights obligations under Article 37 of the UNCRC, which states:
	"Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age".
	Following an inspection of Onley young offender institution last year, the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons stated:
	"It is deplorable to find, as we did, that some young people were not only reduced to urinating in the escort vehicle, but also had to clean it out on arrival".
	These conditions are exacerbated by the length of time that young people are often detained in them, as highlighted by Anne Owers, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, in a speech last year to the Judicial Studies Board:
	"A major concern remains the length of time prisoners can spend in court cells, or on their journey to prison ... the situation, particularly for women and young people, remains unacceptable. At Feltham last year, young people were still arriving as late as 11 pm, and being transported with adult men and women, after lengthy waits in court".
	Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that young offenders' safeguarding and welfare needs are addressed during their transport. I hope that the Minister is able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government fully agree with the intention underlying the amendment, which is to ensure high standards in the arrangements for escorting young people to and from custody. There is concern that trainees on occasion have a long journey from the court to the custodial establishment and sometimes arrive there at a late hour. I assure the Committee that we are well aware of the issues and that the Youth Justice Board has been active in seeking to remedy them, but as much as we abhor even one occasion when that happens it would be remiss to think that this is the general situation or that it happens a disproportionate number of times. Even if it happens only once, we would want to work hard to eradicate it, so that is by no means to detract from its importance. I know that noble Lords understand that we have made significant improvements in this regard over the past few years.
	The solution, however, does not depend on additional legislation. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a provision brought in by noble Lords opposite when they were in Government, places an express duty on custody officers carrying out escort functions to attend to the well-being of persons in their care. Rather the key to improvement is through changes to the contractual arrangements. It may help the Committee if I explain what they are.
	There are two separate escorting contracts covering young people under 18: one managed by the Youth Justice Board to convey young people to and from secure training centres and secure children homes and another managed by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, PECS, to convey trainees to and from young offender institutions. The arrangements specified in the secure training centre and secure children's home contract are very satisfactory and they are working well. The contract provides for escort in an ordinary unmarked vehicle—a people carrier—in which the young person travels with a team of three custody officers direct to the required destination. There is a minimum of delay because the escort team is usually responsible only for a single young person. The Prisoner Escort and Custody Service contract for under-18s also requires the contractor to have regard to the welfare of the young people being escorted, for example by minimising journey times, providing regular comfort breaks, meals, drinks and where necessary access to medical care; but multi-occupancy cellular vehicles that may call at more than one destination per journey are used. As the majority of trainees are placed in young offender institutions, providing escorts to and from those establishments is much the larger operation and there can on occasion be difficulties in delivering young people on time. The Youth Justice Board has for some time been working to improve the operation of the PECS contract and has spent approximately£5 million a year since 2004 on measures to ensure separation of under-18s from older offenders during escort.
	Together with other stakeholders in the PECS improvement implementation project, the Youth Justice Board is working to achieve changes to operational arrangements, performance measures and the submission of data by contractors. A new partnership agreement between stakeholders has also been drawn up. The board is working very hard to achieve improvements, and I assure the Committee that we are taking the issue very seriously. I hope that noble Lords will see that the difference will be made through tightening up the contracts, enforcing them and making sure that we can get them to deliver that which we aspire to achieve. I share the concern; we are focusing on the issue and I assure the Committee that we will continue to do all we can to ensure that those honoured by a contract do some honouring themselves.

On Question, Whether the said amendment(No. 125) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 112.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is one of those occasions when one can be reasonably happy in saying that there is not a great deal between the position of the Government and those who support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. However, there is a big "but" in how we think these matters can better operate with greater flexibility.
	While we fully accept that people suffering from mental disorder who come into contact with the criminal justice system should be given the treatment they need, we believe that the amendment goes too far and is inflexible. Many court liaison and diversion schemes are in operation. The Government accept that these schemes vary in the quality of the support that they are able to provide. Some are able to provide only limited support to the person who comes before the courts.
	At present, the better diversion services provide a range of multi-disciplinary team activities across the whole spectrum of the criminal justice system, and support the police at an earlier point in the path to custody for those vulnerable patients who repeatedly come before them. The courts already have powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 to divert offenders to hospital for treatment. Under Section 35 of that Act, they may remand an accused person to hospital for a report on their mental condition, and under Section 36 they may remand an accused person to hospital for treatment. The police also have the power under that Act to remove a person who appears to be suffering from mental disorder to a place of safety. This is for the purpose of enabling him to be examined by a doctor or interviewed by a social worker, and for the making of any necessary arrangements for the accused person's treatment or care. Statutory arrangements are already in place to enable the courts and the police to divert people into treatment for mental ill health.
	The Government accept that more should be done in this area, but believe that the best way to take this forward is by non-legislative means. To legislate would be to force local commissioners to implement a one-size-fits-all service that took no account of local need. It could undermine existing practice in which local health commissioners were allowed to make their own assessments of the balance of needs and provision in their local communities, and thereby secure the most appropriate levels of service and skill mix to meet those needs.
	Our intention is to publish guidance this year to the National Health Service and partner agenciesthat supports the development of local services that build on the best of what already exists. By thatI mean factors such as multi-agency provision, financial stability, information-sharing protocols, effective leadership, adequate levels of staffing and a clear role definition.
	I think that we are at one with noble Lords in our policy intent and direction. We differ in how we seek to achieve a far better quality and level of service. I hope that my words of reassurance to the noble Lords who tabled the amendment and spoke to it will enable it to be withdrawn.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Deetch, has done an invaluable service by raising this issue. She has made a remarkable speech—albeit a little long.
	Criticism of Israel is perfectly all right. We can criticise any country. However, it is intellectually bankrupt for some academics to pillory Israel as they have done. Inevitably, Israeli academics critical of their Government are also assailed. Yet Israel remains virtually the only country in the Middle East where freedom of speech does not fall outside the law. These anti-Israeli academics are somewhat one-sided. They make no mention of the outrageous attacks by Sudan on the innocentsof Darfur. They ignore China for the occupation of Tibet and the suppression of inconvenient adverse opinions by the government. They turn a blind eye to the slaughter of Palestinians by Palestinians—Hamas and Fatah—going on at this very moment in Gaza. They also ignore the cruelties heaped on intellectuals in Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia and countless other crimes against humanity.
	The attitude of these academics is unfair and it cultivates extremism on both sides—a myopia which is wholly inconsistent with the standards that they supposedly support and which, in my view, is tantamount to the worst form of anti-Semitism.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, the timing of this Question is absolutely crucial, and the boycott motion of Israeli academics at the University and College Union two weeks ago is disgraceful. Having spoken to leading members of the union, I now call for a vote of the full membership of the union on this motion, because true democracy is the only path to a solution.
	I regularly meet Jewish students, and they are having terrible problems. In many places, they feel isolated and vulnerable. What other society at our British universities has to post security at all its events for fear of attacks on its members, whether verbal or physical?
	What must we do? We must empower universities to work with their Jewish students and their allies to combat anti-Semitism on campus. We must help them to monitor incidents and to prevent attempts to attack or delegitimise Jewish societies. Above all, we must again allow our Jewish students to feel safe to wear their faith with pride on campus and not hide it away for fear of attack. I now call on the Government to implement the recommendations of the all-party parliamentary inquiry so that Jewish students can again feel safe on campus. As chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, I particularly commend the Government's recognition, in their response to the report, that Holocaust education is a powerful tool. To tackle anti-Semitism, we need to learn from the past but we must also improve education about Jewish people and about anti-Semitism in general.
	There are cases on campus, as there are everywhere, where the anti-Semitic intent is clear, but the problem runs far deeper. I do not forget that my late father, a Member of this House, used to say: we cannot always see anti-Semitism but we can usually smell it. Especially on our university campuses, its smell is, sadly, growing all the time.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Weizmann UK. The Weizmann Institute of Science is located in Israel and is concerned with the development of basic science. It is one of the foremost institutes of its type in the world. I was there last week. The topic of the proposed UCU boycott was hot news, as noble Lords would expect.
	The institute is nationally blind. Scientists come there from all over the world;4 some are Muslim, including Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. All that matters is the science. One professor said to me:
	"Don't they realise that the nucleus of the Peace Now movement is located on campuses just like this? Do not they see we are fighting first-hand the same cause as they are and that they claim to espouse from the comforts of their armchairs? I am the one who battles with the authorities to get my Palestinian students here. I deal with the roadblocks and the identity checks. What do they do?".
	The proposed boycott is bad for science. It counters the very concept of science, which is about absolute truth and academic freedom. The boycott is also bad for the Palestinians and their desire for nationhood. All that it does is alienate their friends and supporters in Israel and give comfort to their enemies. They have chosen the wrong target.
	The proposed boycott is bad for Britain. Boycotts beget boycotts. Two can play at that game, perhaps even three. Israeli academics can equally boycott the UK. If that were to happen—heaven forbid—academics in both countries would be the losers. I now hear rumblings that, if British universities boycott Israeli universities, American universities will boycott ours. Is that what the UCU wants? More to the point, is it what our universities want?

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, of course criticism of Israel is legitimate and not necessarily anti-Semitic. The fiercest critics of Israel are often to be found in Israel itself, certainly in universities in democratic Israel. But criticism of Israel can be a convenient substitute for anti-Semitic sentiment, which may be the subtext of the resolution referred to, which is, in effect, a call for a boycott of Israeli universities.
	My 50-year membership of the Labour Party has given me some experience of how well-organised groups on the hard left, such as the Socialist Workers Party, can have a disproportionate influence on policy by exploiting what the old Communist Party called "useful idiots"—often well meaning progressives in wider solidarity groups. The UCU resolution is of course an empty gesture. Serious academics will continue to seek partnerships with Israeli academics. Why? Because they value excellence, and Israeli universities are in the premier league of worldwide universities. There are more than 300 collaborative projects between British and Israeli academics under EU auspices. Is it serious or, rather, gesture politics to expect UK academics to withdraw?
	This is like the proposed resolution calling on Unison to boycott trade unions in Israel. The truth is that the Israeli trade unions are by far the freest in that region and often very critical of their Government. The truth is that the Israeli academics are by far the freest in the region and include some of the fiercest critics of Israeli government policy. It is thus absurdity on stilts to promote a boycott of the only free universities and the only free trade unions and, apparently, to ignore the more serious abuses of human rights elsewhere.
	The teachers' union leads; it is hardly surprising that many students follow, and not only Islamists, hard-left groups and BNP supporters.
	Academic freedom and open intellectual exchange are part of the idea of a university. Surely, notwithstanding this glaring example of the trahison des clercs in the union resolution, vice-chancellors should be vigilant, robust and consistent in combating examples of anti-Semitism on campuses, and the Government, in the spirit and letter of their response to the report, should give them full support when they do so.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, there is no doubt that as tensions in the Middle East have risen, there has regrettably been a recent increase in anti-Semitic behaviour. However, we must remember that verbal attacks on certain things done by certain people of Jewish background are not all anti-Semitic in nature. I believe that where people are doing the wrong thing, we should be free to say so without fear of being called anti-Semitic if those people happen to be Jewish. We should criticise the behaviour, not the person or their background. But as the report said,
	"it is never acceptable to mask hurtful racial generalisations by claiming the right to legitimate political discourse".
	People, including student bodies, should mind their language. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, quoted one of the most important statements in the report:
	"While criticism of Israel is legitimate, the language of some speakers too often crosses the line into generalised attacks on Jews".
	I support the recommendations of this valuable report and hope the Government can find ways of implementing them. However, we should remember that vice-chancellors are not in full control of everything that goes on in their campuses. Many speakers are invited or refused a platform by student organisations, not the university, and it can be difficult to know what goes on behind closed doors. This is where the NUS can help, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said.
	We on these Benches firmly condemn genuine anti-Semitism, indeed all racism. We are opposed to the UCU's proposed boycott of Israeli academics. I agree with UUK, which states in its briefing for this debate:
	"The principles of academic freedom are central to the work of higher education institutions, which were established to be places where there is free debate and the exchange of ideas".
	I abhor the idea of limitations on legitimate academic freedom within the reasonable limits I have already mentioned. Academic campuses must provide the fora for critical thinking and the exchange of ideas, but with that freedom comes the responsibility forall academics to make measured and accurate assessments of the actions of governments and to avoid gratuitous attacks and extreme language that may offend or inflame. Universities should teach people to think critically, not criticise unthinkingly.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this important issue, and to the large number of other speakers in this short debate. On the issue of the threatened boycott of Israeli universities, let me say this. The Government unequivocally deplore any proposed boycott. Not only is a boycott wrong in principle, undermining the integrity of relations between bona fide centres of learning, but in practice its only likely effects would be to weaken the progressive forces within both Israel and the Palestinian occupied territories.
	My honourable friend the Minister for Higher Education visited Israel over the weekend and made clear our explicit opposition to a boycott. He had meetings with, among others, Mrs Livni, Vice Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, and Yuli Tamir, the Minister of Education. He also visited the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he met academics and students, and the Palestinian Al Quds University in East Jerusalem, where he had discussions with senior Palestinian academics. In statements that were prominently publicised in the Israeli media, my honourable friend made clear that the Government were strongly opposed to an academic boycott. Not only would a boycott be inconsistent with the spirit of openness and tolerance that should inform public life, it would also be counter-productive. Education plays a vital role in developing and aiding understanding between different people, and it is therefore all the more important to keep open channels of communication between academics and education institutions in the Middle East during these difficult times.
	My honourable friend went on to make it clear that, in our view, the majority of academics in this country were opposed to any form of boycott, and that the National Union of Students had condemned calls for a boycott in very strenuous terms. My honourable friend was accompanied by Drummond Bone, president of Universities UK and vice-chancellor of Liverpool University, who made clear the opposition of universities to a boycott and the collective determination of universities in this country to work constructively with Israeli and Palestinian academics. My honourable friend also announced our intention to host a seminar in London involving UK, Israeli and Palestinian academics, and we will be developing the programme for this event over the coming weeks.
	Let me now turn to the wider issues raised by the report of the all-party parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism. The Government's view on this is equally unequivocal: we are appalled that a tiny minority of people in our society feel they can physically harm or threaten others, due either to race hatred or perhaps to a misguided view that individuals here share responsibility for the actions of groups or states abroad. The recommendations in the report are addressed primarily to vice-chancellors and others in the higher education sector in recognition of the fact that our higher education institutions are independent. However, the Government have a responsibility to encourage and to support higher education institutions in making clear that racism and discrimination have no place whatever in higher education, and we will discharge that responsibility at every available opportunity, including this debate today.
	Britain has in place one of the strongest legislative frameworks to protect people from harassment and abuse and, specifically, racial or religious persecution. This legislation protects Jewish people alongside other racial and ethnic groups. The Race Relations Act 1976 imposes on public authorities, including higher education institutions, a positive duty to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, to promote race equality and to promote good relations between different racial groups. Public institutions also have specific duties under the Act which are designed to help them meet these requirements, for example, the gathering of ethnic minority monitoring data and assessing the impact of the institution's policies on different racial groups. This enables higher education institutions to challenge and prevent racism and discrimination, to promote good relations and to create a climate which values diversity and respects difference.
	Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 also makes incitement to racial hatred a crime. It is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention or likelihood that racial hatred would be engendered and, as the House will know, Jews have been included as a group under this legislation, along with Sikhs, by the courts. The Government extended the 1986 legislation in 2001 to include incitement of hatred against groups abroad, so hatred of nationalities cannot be used to hide racial hatred. It is therefore unlawful to incite hatred against Israelis however strong one's condemnation of their Government's actions and policies. The Act was further strengthened by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
	The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which introduced specific racially aggravated offences, also acts as a deterrent against hate crimes. The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and the Equality Act 2006 also outlaw discrimination on grounds of religion and belief.
	From the summary of the relevant legislation, I hope that I have made sufficiently clear to the House that we have strong legislation in place which empowers higher education institutions to tackle anti-Semitism on campus. I would like to be equally clear on this basis: the Government are not seeking to further regulate universities in this area. We look to universities to act responsibly, and indeed they are doing so.
	But, of course, addressing anti-Semitism and other forms of racism is not only about the law. The policies that universities have in place and how those policies are implemented on campus are all important. There are very many examples of good practice I could highlight in addition to those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others. For example, the Institute of Cancer Research is implementing a system of recording racist and other equality-related incidents called the equality-related incident log. The log will allow the institute to monitor incidents, identify trends and deal with the activity noted.
	There are also excellent examples of creating shared spaces through multi-faith centres and dialogue groups to help build constructive relations between different groups on campus. The University of Derby's well established multi-faith centre has promoted cohesion through a number of specific events; the University of Glasgow recently established a new inter-faith facility on site; and a Jewish and a Muslim student at Manchester University have set up a dialogue group to enable open discussions between Jewish and Muslim students on a range of topics, including political issues. These are just a few examples of universities acting in partnership with students and other bodies to promote harmonious relationships.
	Nevertheless, it is widely acknowledged, not least by universities themselves, that there is bad and inconsistent practice alongside this good practice. As my noble friend Lady Warwick said in her capacity as president of Universities UK, Universities UK is due to meet the all-party parliamentary group to discuss existing activity and the recommendations in the reports. In 2005, guidance was issued by the higher education representative bodies and their equality challenge units on promoting good campus relations dealing with hate crime and intolerance. This guidance provides practical strategies to deal with instances of hate crime and intolerance. It also discusses the balance needed between academic freedom and freedom of expression and the need to ensure that these are not used to harm or to restrict the freedom of others. This guidance is already being widely used and it will be updated in June.
	Universities UK, with the Association of Managers of Student Services in Higher Education, will be hosting a conference that will explore tackling discrimination on campus, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, as well as institutional approaches to good campus relations. My department has also acted in this area. We published guidance last November for higher education institutions and colleges to help them deal with extremism in the name of Islam and to help build community cohesion. The guidance is intended to ensure that freedom of speech is not used by those wanting to bully others, incite others to violence or encourage other illegal behaviour on our campuses.
	I will reply to the many other points in writing because my time is up. I conclude by noting that there is significant action in train to address anti-Semitism in universities, and the Government will continue to treat the issues raised in the all-party inquiry into anti-Semitism with the utmost seriousness.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been another short, valuable debate where there has been a great comity of view among its contributors and a general willingness to make further progress on the vexed issue of rehabilitating offenders. The amendment does what it says on the tin and asks the Government to conduct a review of the 1974 Act and publish their findings. We have learnt from the contributors to the debate that the Government have already conducted such a review in 2002, Breaking the Circle, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater and others referred. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, there are problems in implementing it because of the necessary checks and balances that one understandably has to put in place to ensure that, in rehabilitating offenders, one does not put the general public at risk through somebody reoffending.
	Breaking the Circle proposed modifying disclosure periods for offences and other changes to the operation of the Act. In 2003, the Government agreed that the proposals had merit and proposed to legislate when parliamentary time allowed. That remains the position. However, as I have already said, it is clear that the disclosure landscape has changed to some extent since 2003. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which followed the Bichard report, changes the situation for ex-offenders in many areas of employment. Consideration is required as to whether the Breaking the Circle proposals need updating in the light of these new arrangements. The Government will consider that in due course.
	I want to make it clear that the Government are fully committed to improving opportunities for employment for ex-offenders. I entirely agree with all those who say that employment is a key route out of offending—that is plain for all to see. The cross-government document Reducing Re-offending through Skills and Employment: Next Steps focuses on the need to improve employability, to link skills training to labour market needs, and to provide offenders with a direct route into employment and with employment support. Those key elements are all there and in place. There are three key priorities in this work: engaging employers through the Corporate Alliance for Reducing Re-offending; building on the new offender learning and skills service, including through the campus model; and reinforcing the emphasis on skills and jobs in prisons and probation.
	Two test-bed regions will be appointed to work with us to implement the vision in the most effective way. The Corporate Alliance for Reducing Re-offending is one of three alliances launched by my noble friend Lady Scotland in November 2005. Significant activity to engage employers is part of a cross-government agenda, linked into the national and regional education, training and employment boards and integral to the Green Paper Youth Matters: Next Steps action plan. Working in partnership with other government departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, the National Offender Management Service is developing strategies at national, regional and local levels for engaging employers in providing jobs for offenders and ex-offenders, and using both custodial and community sentences constructively to improve employment opportunities for those offenders. In marketing offenders to employers, we are highlighting how the prison and probation services can train offenders to meet their workforce needs and requirements. A number of major companies have signed up to the corporate alliance including Cisco Systems, Compass, EDS, Holiday Inn, Wessex Water, Wolseley and UBS Investment Bank, as well as Asda, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mentioned.
	Education for offenders is key to helping them increase their employability. The Government have made substantial additional investment in education provision for offenders. It was £57 million back in 2001-02 and has now risen to £151 million in 2005-06 and £156 million in 2006-07. We have had a significant step increase in the resources set aside for that important work. A further £30 million of European Social Fund investment has been secured by the Learning and Skills Council for funding additional provision over the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08, principally for offenders in the community. In addition, although the final decision has yet to be made, I expect the forthcoming criminal justice Bill to include clauses to bring cautions, reprimands and final warnings within the ambit of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
	The amendment would create a statutory requirement for the Government to review a particular piece of legislation and report on it. Much as I understand the move behind the proposed amendment, it would be an odd provision. I contend that our substantive criminal law should not be used simply to require government to conduct a one-off review and publish a report. If we were to go down that road, the statute book could become littered with short-term demands and the volume of our law would increase substantially at a time when many Members of your Lordships' House would consider less would be better.
	I understand and fully accept the noble Lord's commitment to these issues. To a large extent, the Government share it—it is part of a common agenda, but this would not be an acceptable intrusion on to the statute book. That should be reserved for other matters. We fully understand where the noble Lord is coming from. We have embraced much of what was set out in our 2002 review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and much progress has been made in Breaking the Circle, but of course I accept that much more needs to be done. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 131:
	Schedule 3, page 32, line 30, at end insert—
	"Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74)
	A1 In Part 2 of Schedule 1A to the Race Relations Act 1976 (bodies and other persons subject to general statutory duty under section 71), under the heading "Other Bodies, Etc" there are inserted, at the appropriate places, the following entries—
	"A probation trust.""A provider of probation services (other than the Secretary of State or a probation trust), in respect of its statutory functions and the carrying out by it of activities of a public nature in pursuance of arrangements made with it under section 3(2) of the Offender ManagementAct 2007.""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 132:
	Schedule 3, page 32, line 30, at end insert—
	"Children Act 2004 (c. 31)
	A2 (1) The Children Act 2004 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 10(4) (co-operation to improve wellbeing: relevant partners), after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
	"(ca) the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under sections 2 and 3 of the Offender ManagementAct 2007, so far as they are exercisable in relation to England; (cb) any provider of probation services that is required by arrangements under section 3(2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 to act as a relevant partner of the authority;".
	(3) In section 11(1) (persons required to make arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare), after paragraph (j) there is inserted—
	"(ja) the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under sections 2 and 3 of the Offender Management Act 2007, so far as they are exercisable in relation to England;".
	(4) In section 13(3) (establishment of LSCBs: Board Partners), after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
	"(ca) the Secretary of State in relation to any of his functions under sections 2 and 3 of the Offender Management Act 2007, so far as they are exercisable in relation to England;(cb) any provider of probation services that is required by arrangements under section 3(2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 to act as a Board partner of the authority;".
	(5) In section 25(4) (co-operation to improve wellbeing in Wales: relevant partners), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
	"(ba) the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under sections 2 and 3 of the Offender ManagementAct 2007, so far as they are exercisable in relation to Wales;(bb) any provider of probation services that is required by arrangements under section 3(2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 to act as a relevant partner of the authority;".
	(6) In section 28(1) (persons required to make arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare in Wales), after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
	"(fa) the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under sections 2 and 3 of the Offender Management Act 2007, so far as they are exercisable in relation to Wales;".
	(7) In section 31(3) (establishment of LSCBs in Wales), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—
	"(ba) the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under sections 2 and 3 of the Offender ManagementAct 2007, so far as they are exercisable in relation to Wales;(bb) any provider of probation services that is required by arrangements under section 3(2) of the Offender Management Act 2007 to act as a Board partner of the authority;"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As we have previously identified, a large number of consequential amendments need to be made to reflect the fact that probation boards will cease to exist in due course. Clause 35 enables consequential amendments to be made by order after the Bill is enacted, and this is the mechanism that we plan to use for most of them. However, we are making a small number in the Bill in areas that have raised particular interest and where we think it would be helpful to show the Committee how we are approaching these matters. Amendment No. 132 falls into that category.
	Local probation boards are also covered by these provisions. As I have already said, the duties need to be updated to reflect the new arrangements proposed by the Bill, and it is this that the government amendment is particularly interested in. It amends Sections 10, 11, 13, 25, 28 and 31 of the Children Act 2004.
	As many Members of the Committee know, Section 10 of the Children Act requires each children's services authority in England to make arrangements to promote co-operation between the authority, the authority's relevant partners and such other persons or bodies as the authority considers appropriate, with a view to improving the well-being of children in the authority's area. Subsection (4) sets out the list of relevant partners, which includes a local probation board for an area any part of which falls within the area of the authority.
	Paragraph (2) of our amendment replaces the reference to local boards with the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill and any provider of probation services that is so required by arrangements under Section 3(2). Therefore, it will be a general catch-all provision that, we think, will be important. In practice, this means that the Secretary of State will be under a duty to commission probation services in such a way as to ensure appropriate co-operation between probation and children's services authorities, but, as this is essentially a local activity, the day-to-day duty will be exercised through the local lead provider, and this will be specified in the contract.
	Section 11 of the Children Act places a duty on the local probation board to make arrangements for ensuring that its functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Paragraph (3) of our amendment places that duty on the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under Clauses 2 and 3 for ensuring the provision of probation services. The Secretary of State will then be required by virtue of existing Section 11(2)(b) of the Children Act to ensure that any arrangements that he makes with another person to provide services also ensure that those services are discharged having regard to that need. In other words, when entering into contracts with providers of probation, the Secretary of State must ensure that those contracts make provision for services to be delivered having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
	Section 13 of the Children Act requires each children's services authority to establish a local safeguarding children board for their area and forthis to include a representative or representatives of the local probation board. Paragraph (4) of our amendment replaces the reference to local boards with the Secretary of State in relation to his functions under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill and any provider of probation services that is so required by arrangements under Section 3(2). As with the duty to co-operate in Section 10 of the Children Act, this means in practice that the Secretary of State will be under a duty to commission probation services in such a way asto ensure that there is appropriate probation representation on the local safeguarding children's board. However, as the work of a board is a local matter, the contract will require the appropriate provider to participate in it. The provisions applyto England only. Sections 25, 28 and 31 of the Children Act mirror the provisions for Wales, and paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of our amendment do the same thing.
	I appreciate that this has been a lengthy and detailed explanation of the amendment, but I hope that it has shown the Committee how we intend to ensure that the existing duties on local probation boards are carried forward fully to the new arrangements envisaged by the Bill. We remain wholly committed to maintaining probation commitments not just to children's services but towards the full range of partnerships in which they currently participate. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 133 to 134:
	Schedule 3, page 32, line 30, at end insert—
	"Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007
	A1 (1) Section 80 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (application of Chapter 1 of Part 5: partner authorities) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3)(g)—
	(a) the "and" after sub-paragraph (ii) is omitted;(b) after sub-paragraph (iii) there is inserted ";(iv) his functions under sections 2 and 3 of the Offender Management Act 2007 (responsibility for ensuring the provision of probation services throughout England and Wales)."
	(3) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
	"(5A) The Secretary of State's functions under this Chapter as a partner authority of a local authority in relation to the functions referred to in subsection (3)(g)(iv) are functions to which section 2(1)(c) of the Offender Management Act 2007 (functions to be performed through arrangements under section 3 of that Act) applies.""
	Schedule 3, page 34, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (2)
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 5 [Repeals]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 136 is agreed to, I cannot call AmendmentNo. 137 because of pre-emption.

Lord Judd: I support the noble Lord and pay him an unreserved tribute. He has brought very special qualities to public life in Britain and we would all be the worse without him. His intellectual integrity speaks for itself. His relentless—if I may be forgiven for using that word—logic and analysis is invariably challenging. I do not often try to make forecasts about history—my wife is a historian and gets worried if I even start to talk about history. However, I really do believe that the noble Lord's contribution to the progress of this Bill and his other contributions on penal policy will together prove to be a landmark in the deliberations on penal policy in this country. We all owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude for what he did as Chief Inspector of Prisons. He did not just lay down the mantle when his time was up; he picked up his experience as a weapon to fight for what he believed to be right and necessary.
	I also take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to my noble friends on the Front Bench. They have, yet again, shown exemplary courtesy, patience and thoroughness in all that they have endeavouredto do in responding to our deliberations. I wish sometimes—perhaps not just sometimes—that they had given more ground, but their thoroughness and their commitment to ensuring that all our arguments received proper and full replies could not be bettered.
	However, I want to explain now why there is another amendment following in my name; I assure the House that, whatever happens to this amendment, I do not now intend to pursue mine. In thanking my noble friends, I wanted to make a point that follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has just said.
	We are talking about important and significant developments in the administration of penal policy. I am perplexed. At a time when we have seen it necessary to make a major reorganisation in government—in which the Home Office is to be divided into two separate ministries, each with its own Cabinet Minister—and the new Ministry of Justice is to have responsibility for everything discussed in this debate, I am perplexed that the Minister of Justice did not take the Bill and carry it forward. We had the presence of one of the Ministers from the Ministry of Justice today, but the Ministers of the Ministry of Justice would have done well to be here to hear all the debates, deliberations, analyses, arguments and concerns. In my experience of administration, which has been in very different spheres, to make a success of it, there has to be an intellectual and ethical ownership of what it has been decided should be administered. We are left with a question mark as to how far the new Ministry of Justice feels that it owns the Bill and is responsible for it. That is why in my amendment I wanted to emphasise the importance of the Ministry of Justice.
	Again, I do not want to be offensive to my noble friends, because they have done a terrific job. I know that they will not for a moment believe that I have anything but admiration for them. However, this situation is strange. As we said in earlier deliberations in Committee, the arrangements are not there as ends in themselves, but to enable us to fulfil objectives. Therefore, there has to be a very real look at what the total objectives are. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, clearly went through—in a sort of revision course—the issues that had emerged in Committee with great agreement from all sides. He will forgive me, because he has heard how highly I think of what he has been doing, but I was a little disappointed that he did not pick out one salient point. Perhaps it is just my subjective commitment, but I thought that one of the fundamental commitments of all of us in Committee—from whatever party and even on the Government Front Bench—was the rehabilitation of the offender.
	That makes economic sense. It is foolish not to succeed with the rehabilitation of offenders, because of the future costs of reoffending and all that goes with it, not to mention the pain and social cost of the crimes committed. In a decent, civilised community none of us should want to leave a stone unturned in the battle to ensure that as many people as possible can become decent, positive citizens, as distinct from people trapped in a self-destructive, stunted kind of life. We know, sadly, that too much of our current penal policy reinforces the stunted life to which I refer.
	This amendment and the way in which it has been moved have been tremendously important. I am not sure whether at this hour the noble Lord will want to press it to a vote. Perhaps that would be unwise, but I think that he has been right to make the points as powerfully as he has.
	With regard to all the dedicated people who have worked on the Bill, the noble Lord mentioned the Public Bill Office, which is great, and of course our own servants in this House are fantastic. However, I think that we are inclined to take for granted all the civil servants out there who work unsocial hours to tie in with the processes by which we deliberate in this House, so we also want to thank all the dedicated civil servants who have been working on the Bill.
	I believe that we will only be ready for the future if, at this moment all over the Ministry of Justice, civil servants and Ministers are waiting for the next copy of Hansard to read what was said in the debate. They should be waiting to see what issues were raised and what they want to take into account as they approach the moment of fulfilment and administration of the Bill as the necessary legislation for the future, however inadequate it may be—and I agree with most of what the noble Lord said about its inadequacy.
	I thank the noble Lord for introducing the amendment. I assure the Committee that I shall not pursue mine, but I ask my noble friends, in the same spirit that they have shown throughout the Bill, to take very seriously what he has said.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I support the amendment. I must say that I was glad to be in the Chamber to hear the remarkable, heartfelt and entirely appropriate tribute that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, paid to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and to the Ministers on the Front Bench. On behalf of the rest of us I thank the noble Lord for that.
	The amendment offers a welcome and excellent opportunity, in the light of the major changes which have taken place in the Home Office and the creation of the Ministry of Justice, for a moment of valuable reflection. It requires a report to be laid before Parliament, which would include a review of the proposals in Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime and the responses to the consultation Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-offending, for the reform of the Probation Service. That would give Parliament an opportunity to debate thoroughly all the issues surrounding the reform of the Probation Service and the management of offenders. This breathing space would be really helpful and creative. It would mean that in the new world of offender management, with contestability, wider welcome involvement of the voluntary and private sectors, trusts, training, arrangement with prisons in both the public and private sectors and the future of child detention—to name just a few—coupled with the myriad of wider contextual issues which the new Ministry of Justice will be dealing with, we would have the opportunity to reassess the new landscape and reach far better informed conclusions than currently we are able to do.

Lord Low of Dalston: I, too, strongly support the amendment. Although I have not played an extensive part in the deliberations of the Committee—perhaps because I do not have the great expertise of other noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—I have listened carefully to the debates. It is clear to me that, despite the extensive discussion which has taken place, many doubts remain.
	Like other noble Lords, I have my list. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, listing his doubts, I was not gratified by the extent to which they echoed mine so much as impressed by the degree of consensus which was emerging as to the deficiencies of the Bill as it now stands. Given the exhaustive nature of the debate, I shall do no more than list about a half-dozen of my doubts. I will do that briefly because if one is repeating what other people have said, it behoves one to do so as briefly as possible. I make so bold as to repeat my list of doubts because, as I hope that the Minister will agree, it may be of value to hear how far the doubts about the present state of the Bill are echoed in all corners of the Committee. I hope that the noble Baroness will take the opportunity before Report to reflect on what is said.
	My first concern is that the Bill is not evidence-based. No business case has been made for dismantling the National Probation Service—which came into being a mere six years ago in 2001—or that introducing competition and contestability will improve the effectiveness of the service in the reduction of offending and reoffending.
	Secondly, as has been said, the Bill ignores the responses to consultation exercises. In the most recent consultation, in the autumn of 2005, 99 per cent of responses opposed the proposals now in the Bill, but the Government have pressed on regardless.
	Thirdly, in promoting competition, fragmentation and Balkanisation rather than co-operation, the Bill threatens coherence in the provision of probation services, with the Probation Service ceasing to be the statutory co-ordinator of provision of rehabilitation services by the range of providers in the community.
	Fourthly, the Bill transfers commissioning powers away from the locality, in contrast to the devolution agenda promoted in so many areas of government policy. The changes move commissioning powers from the local probation boards to a regional or even national level. When I spoke to a senior probation officer about the changes introduced by the Bill, the point that she impressed on me most forcefully was that, if nothing else was preserved of the Probation Service as we know it today, she hoped that its local co-ordinating and partnership-brokering role, which it already undertakes with considerable success with courts, police, health services and local authorities, would remain.
	Fifthly, there are fears that the new system will favour the large national and multinational companies and the large national voluntary sector organisations at the expense of the small, local, community-based voluntary sector organisations, who have so much to contribute.
	Finally, the imposition of contestability threatens to undermine the professionalism and ésprit de corps of the Probation Service. Indeed, it threatens the destruction of probation as a profession—a service that has honourable traditions of professionalism and effectiveness built up over 100 years.
	The Bill is silent on the subject of training. Constant reorganisation of the service has given rise to a state of demoralisation and difficulties in retention, risking the loss of key skills and resulting in inadequate supervision of offenders. If probation services are provided by a range of private, public and voluntary sector providers who, in time, will have different terms and conditions, how will the continuation of a trained probation profession be guaranteed?
	Given all those considerations, added to the recent change in the responsible department and the imminent change of Prime Minister, it is essential that the Government take the opportunity to draw breath, undertake a review, reflect, and rethink precisely where they are going with these proposals. I hope that they may even welcome such an opportunity.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful for the careful and thoughtful way in which all noble Lords have responded to this debate, and to the issues in relation to Part 1 and how we have taken it through the Committee stage. They are important measures which deserve careful consideration. I join others in saying how impressed I have been by the energy of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Indeed I have to say that I found his presentation of this amendment at times breathtaking for a number of reasons. I recognise the keen interest of the noble Lord in these matters, but I am afraid that I do not quite agree with him that this amendment is a helpful way forward. I offer my warm thanks to my noble friend Lord Judd for the kind remarks he made about us all and for the way in which he, too, has pursued this issue with great energy.
	I should say that the Committee should not labour under any misapprehension. All the officials inthe Box who have assisted me are in fact from the Ministry of Justice. The Committee has had the terrible burden of my continued presence to present this Bill, but the policy remains the Government's policy. I should make it clear that there is not a breath between the views that I express and the views held and advocated by the Ministry of Justice. We speak with one voice. In this House we are in the happy position that whenever any Minister stands at this Dispatch Box, the Minister speaks not for the department but for the Government, and therefore it is the joint and several view of the Government that I now express on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. I need also to say to noble Lords that all the Ministers in the Ministry of Justice have paid acute attention to the deliberations in your Lordships' House. Noble Lords know that my honourable friend Gerry Sutcliffe, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, has had the honour of discharging the role in the Home Office and has now joined the serried ranks of the Ministry of Justice. He retains his responsibility, now acting as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to my right honourable friend David Hanson. So I need to say to my noble friend Lord Judd that I am afraid that the department and the Government have formed a view.
	It is not a view to which we have rushed. The amendment of the noble Lord, Ramsbotham, would prevent the provisions in Part 1 being implemented in the normal way. Instead the Government would be required to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing specified information, much of which we have already made public anyway. We would then wait six months before making any orders under Part 1. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is right when she says that this is not really a delay of six months, but one of much longer than that. The noble Lord therefore may have been labouring under the misapprehension that the Ministry of Justice may take a different approach during that time from the way in which matters were adopted when these issues were with the Home Office where they originated. I hope that I have now laid that misapprehension to rest.
	Nor do I believe that things have changed because of changes in the machinery of government. Of course I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said about the changes that he foreshadows, and it may be that he is far more intimately involved in the future Prime Minister's plans than any of us. We shall wait and see whether that is the case. I cannot accept the noble Lord's assertion that we are rushing these proposals. Indeed, if anything we might be vulnerable to criticism that we have taken too long. As the noble Lord's amendment indicates, these proposals have their roots in the report, Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime, which the Government commissioned from Lord Carter in March 2003, and which he published in December of that year, some three and a half years ago.
	We then waited for nearly two years before issuing our consultation document, Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-offending, in October 2005. This was followed in March 2006 by a summary of responses and our proposals for taking the policy forward—in effect, what is required by subsection (1B)(c) and (d) of the noble Lord's amendment. But the world has moved on considerably since then and it is unclear what purpose would be served by revisiting these now rather dated documents.
	Since the Bill was introduced into Parliament last November, it has been thoroughly debated, not least in the six sittings of this Committee, when the great majority of our time has been spent focusing on the 12 clauses in Part 1. I may not agree with all the amendments made, some of which we will wish to reflect on further, but overall I believe that the Bill is much improved as a result of the careful scrutiny it has received here and in the other place. That is what the parliamentary process is all about. We will look at the Bill even more carefully on Report and at Third Reading before it goes back to the other place.
	Once the process has been concluded, however, the provisions must be implemented in the normal way. There is nothing novel in this Bill which would require such a restriction on the Government's ability to implement. This is particularly so given the gradual pace at which we propose to proceed. By virtue of Clause 4, the Bill already ensures that the work carried out by the Probation Service in relation to courts can be commissioned only from the public sector. As we know, and have debated at length, that restriction could be lifted only after a positive endorsement from both Houses of Parliament. This is a significant change from the policy set out in the original consultation document. We have also made clear that the core offender management work will be commissioned only from the public sector until 2010, again a change from the policy originally outlined. So we are certainly not envisaging rapid change in terms of opening up probation services to competition.
	The noble Lord is concerned about the rate of change of the boards to trusts, but here again we are proceeding cautiously. We want to establish trusts in three waves, starting next April and finishing in 2010. As I made clear when we discussed Clause 5, we see this very much as a collaborative process. We know that it will be a learning process for all concerned, which is why the first wave will comprise only a small number of trusts, with which we will work closely to develop our experience together, with a view to applying the lessons learnt to future waves.
	Boards are being invited to apply to become trusts in the first wave. We are not forcing them to move before they are ready. We have invited 35 of the existing 42 probation boards to express an interest in forming part of the first wave of trusts in April 2008. Only the seven probation boards classified as poor performers were not eligible to apply. I emphasise that we are talking only about eligibility, not the number being chosen.
	Today was the deadline, and we are still looking at responses, but it looks as though nearly two-thirds of the 35 eligible boards have expressed an interest in becoming trusts in April. It is an impressive indicator of the commitment to change in the service, despite the uncertainties to which various noble Lords referred. This is an important point.
	I know that noble Lords are genuinely concerned. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Low, who was not able to be with us throughout all our deliberations, that the issues he raises have been explored in great depth during the previous six days in Committee. There is a great deal upon which we agree but there is certainly more that we need to look at again.
	I hope I have outlined the lengthy gestation of these proposals. I know that there has been a period of uncertainty and anxiety for both the service as a whole and the individuals working within it, and prolonging that further will not assist them. We need now to set out a clear programme for change, which we are doing in consultation with the service, and we then need to get on and implement it so that we can put an end to staff uncertainty and reap the benefits of improved delivery. I regret that I do not think the noble Lord's amendment will assist us in this, and I ask him to withdraw it. I accept, however, that we have more to do; we still have Report and Third Reading. The Bill has not left us yet.